Laserfiche WebLink
that their duty under the 1969 Act to curtail material injury' is <br />sufficient to protect the Ranchers' interests. In other words, <br />the Engineers and BP argue that it is not necessary to deem the <br />extraction of water during the CBM process a "beneficial use" of <br />water. But the fact that the Engineers concede that they are <br />required to protect against material injury pursuant to the 1969 <br />Act does not eliminate the Ranchers' concerns about protecting <br />their vested senior water rights. The 1969 Act provision, <br />requiring the Engineers to curtail material injury, does not <br />afford the same protection as permitting and permanent <br />augmentation plans. Permitting is a comprehensive process that <br />provides notice to potentially injured parties and involves the <br />determination of whether there is unappropriated water available <br />for appropriation and whether an appropriation can be made <br />without injury. See Buffalo Park Dev. Co. v. Mountain Mut. <br />Reservoir Co., 195 P.3d 674, 683 -86 (Colo. 2008). The statutory <br />design places the determination of the presence or absence of a <br />water right with the water court, not the Engineers. See Santa <br />' Pursuant to section 37- 92- 502(2)(a), C.R.S. (2008) of the <br />1969 Act, <br />[The Engineer] shall also order the total or partial <br />discontinuance of any diversion in his division to the <br />extent that the water being diverted is required by <br />persons entitled to use water under water rights <br />having senior priorities, but no such discontinuance <br />shall be ordered unless the diversion is causing or <br />will cause material injury to such water rights having <br />senior priorities. <br />19 <br />