Laserfiche WebLink
less than 1,000 cfs in some months of the year as identified in the monthly chart <br />in Tables 1 and 2, above. The testimony also demonstrated that the water <br />diverted and controlled by the Course at these lower flows is also beneficially <br />used for recreational purposes. Therefore, the Court further finds that all . <br />amounts less than 1,000 cfs are also put to beneficial use and are not wasted. <br />9. Reasonableness: The Court concludes that the amount of water claimed by <br />Golden is reasonable to serve Golden's purposes in making the appropriation. <br />"Beneficial use" is "the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and <br />appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the <br />purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made." C.R.S. y 37 -92- 103(4). <br />The question, therefore, is not whether the amount of water claimed is <br />"reasonable" in the abstract, or as compared to other potential future uses of the <br />water, but whether the amount claimed is reasonable for the purposes for which <br />Golden made the appropriation. When tested against Golden's purposes <br />explained in Paragraph 8 above, the Court concludes that the 1,000 cfs claimed <br />by Golden in May, June and July, and the lesser amounts claimed in the other <br />months of the year, are reasonable. <br />Although not required to consider other potential uses of water in <br />quantifying a water right under the beneficial use statute, the Court notes that the <br />rights at issue are non - consumptive, and the water claimed is always available for <br />all downstream uses. In a dry-water year, 100% of the water claimed for the <br />Course is already subject to a downstream senior call. In an average water year, <br />approximately 84% of the water that passes through the Golden Course is subject <br />to such a call. Thus, in an average water year, only 16% of the water claimed by <br />Golden is not already subject to a downstream, senior call. The Court also has on <br />file settlement stipulations between Golden and upstream water users. These <br />various agreements subordinate up to 41 cfs of the Golden Course water rights to <br />future exchanges for the benefit of future upstream uses. This amounts to <br />approximately two of the water claimed by Golden in an average year that <br />is not already subject to a downstream senior call. The Court also notes that <br />Golden has agreed to provide 125 of of fully consumable dry year augmentation <br />water that will meet Clear Creek County's projected full build out requirements. <br />The foregoing further confirms the reasonableness of Golden's appropriation. <br />The Court further finds that the testimony of the State's expert witness, <br />Dr: Shelby, does not assist the Court in rendering the decisions on "beneficial <br />use" and "reasonableness" that must be made in the context of the Colorado <br />appropriation doctrine. Water rights in Colorado are quantified according to the <br />amount of water that is reasonable to serve the appropriator's intended beneficial <br />use. Dr. Shelby did not take into account the intent of the appropriator, the City <br />of Golden. On this point, Dr. Shelby did not consider one of the major elements <br />of his own methodology; namely, the decision environment, which in this <br />instance is the law in Colorado on the appropriation of water. Instead, his <br />opinions were based on a survey of a small group of Course users. The survey <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />