Laserfiche WebLink
Court recently made this point when rejecting an argument that water decreed for hydropower in <br />the Aspinall Unit is none - the -less available for diversion to another, consumptive beneficial use. <br />Arapahoe County 11, 14 P.3d at 335. While noting that.the Colorado River Storage Project Act <br />enabled storage to ensure that upper basin states could meet their compact delivery obligations <br />while still providing for the development of consumptive uses, this Court cautioned that such <br />development had to occur with state law and not by "eroding other rights decreed to beneficial <br />use in the state." Id., 14 P.3d at 334. This Court went on to reaffirm that non - consumptive <br />hydropower is a beneficial use and that neither court precedent nor any statute "set forth any <br />different treatment for hydropower rights" as a result of their non - consumptive nature. Id., 14 <br />P.3d at 337. <br />Both Fellhauer v. People, 167 Colo. 320, 336, 447 P.2d 986, 994 (1968), in which the <br />Court first articulated the policy of maximum utilization of water, and the 1969 Water Rights <br />Determination and Administration Act, "centered on ... maximizing the use of Colorado's <br />limited water supply for as many decreed uses as possible consistent with meeting the state's <br />interstate delivery obligations under ... equitable apportionment decrees and ... compacts." <br />Empire Lodge v. Meyers, 39 P.3d 1139, 1150 (Colo. 200 1) (citation omitted). None of this <br />Court's opinions suggest that the beneficial uses that contribute to Colorado's effort to maximize <br />its use of water need to be consumptive. When the Court recently listed some of the new, non- <br />traditional uses that have come into being over the last hundred years, the Court did not <br />discriminate against non - consumptive or in- channel ones. Santa Fe Trail Ranches, 990 P.2d at <br />55 n.13. <br />11 <br />