Laserfiche WebLink
00CW281,Div.5 <br /> Decree <br /> For all of the foregoing reasons,the Court concludes that the flows from 100 cfs up to 500 cfs <br /> can and will be put to beneficial use and are not wasted. The Court recognizes that the Town of <br /> Breckenridge claimed amounts of water less than 500 cfs in some months of the years as identified in <br /> paragraph 4F. The testimony also demonstrated that the water diverted and controlled by the Park at <br /> these lower flows is also beneficially used for recreational purposes. Therefore, the Court further <br /> finds that at amounts above 100 cfs and less than the 500 cfs are also put to beneficial use and are not <br /> wasted. <br /> The Court also finds that the water controlled by the Park structures is incidentally used for <br /> piscatorial purposes. However,the Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support an <br /> appropriation for that purpose separately and apart from the operation of the whitewater park and <br /> that the application for piscatorial rights should be denied. <br /> I. Name and Address of Owner of Land on Which Structures Are Located: The structures which <br /> constitute the Town of Breckenridge Whitewater Park are located on land owned by the Town of <br /> Breckenridge. <br /> J. Reasonableness. The Court concludes that the amount ofwater claimed by Town ofBreckenridge <br /> between 100 cfs and 500 cfs is reasonable to serve the Town of Breckenridge's intended purposes in making <br /> the appropriation. "Beneficial use" is the"use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate <br /> under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is <br /> lawfully made." C.R.S. §37-92-103(4)(2000). The question,therefore,is not whether the amount of water <br /> claimed is "reasonable" in the abstract, or as compared to other potential future uses of the water, but <br /> whether the amount claimed is reasonable for the purposes for which the Town of Breckenridge made the <br /> appropriation. When tested against the Town ofBreckenridge's purposes and the down-stream reuses ofthis <br /> non consumptive water right as explained in paragraph 4H above, as well as the efficiency of the diversion <br /> detailed in paragraph 4G above,the Court concludes that the 500 c.f s. claimed by the Town ofBreckenridge <br /> in June, and the lesser amounts claimed in the other months as set forth in paragraph 4F, are reasonable and <br /> there is no waste. At flows less than 100 cfs, the use of the water is not reasonable as the testimony at trial <br /> established that whitewater features do not appear until the flow exceeds 100 cfs. <br /> Although not required to consider other potential uses of water in quantifying a water right under the <br /> beneficial use statute, the Court notes that the rights at issue are non-consumptive, and the water claimed is <br /> always available for all downstream uses. Downstream of the Park,Denver's Dillon Reservoir and Roberts <br /> Tunnel rights total 252,678 acre-feet for storage(excluding second fill) and 788 c.f s. for direct diversion. <br /> The Bureau of Reclamation's Green Mountain Reservoir and Powerplant rights total 154,645 a.f. and 1,726 <br /> c.f.s. The water rights for the Shoshone Powerplant total 1,408 c.f.s. Between these three entities,there are <br /> administrative calls year-round against upstream juniors in most average and low-flow years. Specifically,the <br /> only occasions when calls do not originate from Green Mountain Reservoir and Powerplant are in those years <br /> when Green Mountain Reservoir physically spills (high-flow year)or when the hydropower units are down <br /> fd6970 —6— <br />