Case No. 01SA252 Motion for Leave to File a Breif as Amici Curiae April 2002

Home Browse Search

Golden's appropriation in favor of an unknown future appropriator would be contrary to established law. What is more, such a decision would couple the anti - speculation doctrine for the first time with a public interest test, something heretofore not part of Colorado water law. See, supra, part I.C. As a practical matter, this Court's adoption of the State's position would favor one use (even an unknown future use) over another (due only to its non- consumptive, in- channel nature). Since this Court found and the legislature has affirmed that recreational in- channel diversions are a beneficial use, this result would be counter to existing law and without precedent. 3. Instream and non - consumptive uses are an important part of Colorado's beneficial use of its scarce water resource. The importance of non - consumptive and in- channel uses to the State of Colorado cannot be underestimated. Most Colorado rivers are over - appropriated. Empire Lodge, 39 P. 3d at 1149 -50. So, today, the appropriation of water for non - consumptive use may be one of the few ways for new appropriators to add to the panoply of water use in the state without stopping another existing use. Moreover, water in rivers — whether appropriated for recreational in- channel use, a fish ladder, an instream flow to protect the environment to a reasonable degree or a release for fish and recreational purposes— contribute substantially to Colorado's tourist -based economy. Fishing generates $1.3 billion dollars annually to the state economic base, while rafting adds $123 million. American Sportfishing Association, "1996 Sport Fishing Participation and Economic Impact for Colorado," http : / /www.asafishing.org/content/ statistics / economic /index.cfm ?state -= Colorado (attached hereto as Appendix F); Colorado River Outfitters Association, "Economic Impact of Commercial River Rafting in Colorado, 1988 - 2000" (2001), 13