Laserfiche WebLink
better than any other Colorado water user the myriad ways traditional water users employ to <br />develop more water upstream of a reach to which they need to deliver a quantity of flow. <br />5. The issue of whether anyone could obtain a decree for in- channel fishery <br />restoration or maintenance purposes is not before the Court in this case. <br />The State Amici argue that, if this Court upholds Golden's decree, other entities might try <br />to build on the precedent set for in- channel control to establish fishery conservation as a <br />beneficial use, thereby undermining Colorado's ability to achieve its goal of the maximum <br />utilization of the state's compact entitlements. C. Springs Brief, at 11 -13. Of course, the <br />precedent already exists. In Ft. Collins, this Court held that a fish ladder could effect sufficient <br />control of river flows to constitute a legally beneficial fisheries use. Ft. Collins, 830 P.2d at 932. <br />Moreover, in a case involving in- channel structures on the South Platte River, the State initially <br />filed a statement of opposition, but ultimately stipulated to the award of a decree not only for <br />recreational use but also for "development of a fishery and fish habitat." Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law, Ruling of the Referee and Decree of the Water Court, Case No. 94CW273, <br />Water Div. 1, ¶ 4, p. 2 and ¶¶ 12 & 13, p. 5 (attached hereto as Appendix J). <br />As is true for recreational or hydropower uses, once this Court finds that something is a <br />beneficial use, it becomes part of the maximum utilization of Colorado's waters. That said, <br />whether a particular application establishes sufficient control or a beneficial use is, as noted <br />above, a matter of fact for the trial court to decide. City & County of Denver v. Sheriff, 105 <br />Colo. at 204, 96 P.2d at 842. Because this question is not presented in this case, this Court must <br />exercise judicial restraint and not reach out to decide it. Denver United States National Bank V. <br />People ex rel. Dunbar, 29 Colo. App. 93, 97 -98, 480 P.2d 849, 851 (1970) (citation omitted) <br />(appellate court will not consider questions raised only by amici). <br />16 <br />