Laserfiche WebLink
where an applicant sought a decree for more than the amount of Colorado's compact delivery <br />obligations. <br />One of the State's Amici also argues that, if this Court upholds Golden's decree, someone <br />could file for a state -line right for a non- recreational in- channel diversion, i.e., an in- channel <br />diversion for a different use, such as fishery protection, an application to which S.B. 216 would <br />not apply. C. Springs Brief at 12 -13. As noted above, this argument fails for three reasons. <br />First, the issue of whether this Court would find that particular in- channel control for the purpose <br />of fishery restoration or maintenance to be a beneficial use is not before the court. See, supra, <br />part II.AA Second, any such case would present the court with an opportunity to exercise its <br />role in protecting the state policy of maximum utilization. See, supra, part H.A. Third, if such <br />application were for beneficial use, then the use would be part of the use Colorado makes of its <br />compact entitlement waters. See, supra, part II.A.1. <br />CONCLUSION <br />For all of the above reasons, the undersigned respectfully request this Court affirm the <br />decree that the trial court awarded Golden. <br />18 <br />