Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001128 <br /> <br />Courts generally disfavor selective subordination. <br /> <br />However, by contract, a person can make his or her priority <br /> <br />inferior to another, and courts can give legal effect to the <br /> <br />senior user's intention to make his priority inferior in this <br /> <br />regard. See Perdue v. Fort Lyons, 184 Colo. 219, 223, 519 P.2d <br /> <br />954, 956 (1974). <br /> <br />We agree with the water court that Arapahoe is not entitled <br /> <br />to the benefit of the subordination agreement because of its <br />. <br /> <br />proposed transbasin uses, and therefore we find it unnecessary <br /> <br />to consider if BUREC has consented to increase the subordination <br /> <br />beyond 60,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br />b. MARKETABLE POOL <br /> <br />The marketable pool represents water that could be <br /> <br />available for beneficial use by other water users. The original <br /> <br />decrees adjudicate the full amount of water to the United States <br /> <br />for a number of decreed purposes, and BUREC has been using the <br /> <br />full amount for those decreed purposes since the issuance of the <br /> <br />decrees. <br /> <br />The 1922 and 1948 Compacts allocate a certain amount of the <br /> <br />exclusive beneficial consumptive use of the waters of the <br /> <br />Colorado River System in perpetuity to Colorado. <br /> <br />See ~ 37-61- <br /> <br />101, article II(a), 10 C.R.S. (2000); ~ 37-62-101, article <br /> <br />III (a) (2), 10 C.R.S. (2000). Under the Compacts, Colorado's <br /> <br />apportioned Colorado River water may be used anywhere within the <br /> <br />42 <br />