Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, - <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />THE CITY OF GOLDEN'S APPUCATION FOR <br />SURFACE WATER RIGHTS: A KAYAK COlJRSE, <br />INSTREA.t\1 FLOW, DILUTION, OR WHAT? <br /> <br />.'lJvN BEATIE .'\1"1D jAc\1ES FOSNAUGHT <br /> <br />1. 1'iTRODUCTlON <br /> <br />The City of Golden, Colorado ("Golden") has submitted an <br />application' to the District Court, Water Division l, in the State of <br />Colorado, for confinnacion of absolute surface water rights for eight <br />existing suuctures in Golden's White Water Rafting Course ("Course") <br />on Clear Creek in Jefferson County, Colorado, and for conditional <br />water rights for ten strUctures Golden intends to add to the course.' <br />Varioll5 local governments and private water users have filed <br />st3tements of opposition to Golden's application. The application tolls <br />four primary issues that have potentially wide reaching effects on water <br />allocation: (1) whether Golden "can and will" complete the <br />conditional appropriations; (2) whether Golden's application <br />constitutes an instream flow which, by st3tute, only the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board may acquire and administer; (3) whether the <br />appropriations constitute waste; and (4) whether the appropriation <br />will affect upstream future developments. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />II. CAN AND Wll.L DOCTRINE <br /> <br />The statements of opposition raise the issue of whether the City of <br />Golden "can and will" put the requested conditional water rights to <br />beneficialll5e.' In Colorado, an applicant for a conditional water right <br /> <br />1. For a more detailed description of the application and statements of <br />opposition, see the Colorado Water Rights Applications section of this issue. infra at <br />358. <br />2, City of Golden Application for Surface Water Rights. Case No. 98CW448 <br />(Water Division 1. December 10.1998) [hereinafter Golden's Application!. <br />3. Filed on March 3, 1999, the City of Arvada's statement of opposition requests <br />that Golden be held to strict proof with respect to "whether the claimed conditional <br />appropriations can and will be completed with diligence and within a reasonable <br />time." City of Arvada Statement of Opposition, ~ 2(B)(4). Filed on January 26.1999, <br />Coors Brewing Company's statement of opposition states chat, "[i]f it is proven that a <br />laM'ul appropriation has been made, Applicant must then demonstrate that the water <br />rights can and will be administered in priority." Coors Brewing Company Statement of <br />Opposition, ~ 2(G), Filed on March 3, 1999, the Town of Georgetown', statement of <br />opposition requesL5 Golden be held to strict proof about, "[tJhe reasonably <br /><lmicipaced future legal and physical availabiliry of water for water rights sought." <br />Town of Georgetown Statement of Opposition. 3 3(E) (I). <br /> <br />273 <br /> <br />. <br />