Laserfiche WebLink
of water that can be appropriated, all the post - Fort Collins recreational instream flow applicants <br />requested the maximum amount of water available - virtually the entire flow of the stream. <br />In this case, the Applicant is claiming water in amounts that are rarely available and <br />represent the entire hydrograph for the Blue River for the months of April through October. (v. <br />VIII, p. 134). The maximum amounts claimed have been available four times in forty -three <br />years. (v. VIII, pp. 135, 137). Thus, the water court imposed no limits and failed to consider <br />whether a smaller amount was reasonable and appropriate to accomplish the Applicant's <br />purpose. Because this water right never existed before, the water court had no guidance to <br />determine whether the amount was "unrealistically high" and erred in granting a water right for <br />an amount that is significantly greater than what would be reasonable and appropriate in a <br />considered system. <br />Further, one of the basic reasons this Court and the Legislature have required a physical <br />diversion from the stream was to ensure maximum utilization. CWCB 594 P.2d at 573. In a <br />purely consumptive system, the cost of diverting water thwarts speculation, and thus, <br />subordination is not inherently unfair. Where there is no requirement of diversion, and no limits <br />on the amount of water that can be claimed, the Applicant can claim all the water and then <br />selectively subordinate that water right for a price. This creates an unfair, speculative, and <br />monopolistic system. Such speculation was the concern of the Legislature during the hearing on <br />7 Courts can give legal effect to a senior user's intention to make his priority inferior to <br />another user by subordination agreements. Board of County Com'rs of County of Arapahoe v. <br />Crystal Creek Homeowners Ass'n 14 P.3d 325, 341 (Colo. 2000). <br />18 <br />