Laserfiche WebLink
any diversion of the waters of the state that is not an <br />inefficient way of accomplishing its purpose, whatever that <br />purpose may be. By no longer requiring that these waters even <br />be put to some use, but rather that it simply be advantageous to <br />someone to relocate them from their natural course or location, <br />I believe the majority has effectively eliminated the <br />requirement altogether, making an efficient act of diverting <br />sufficient for an appropriation. <br />While we have undoubtedly contributed to the current state <br />of affairs by sanctioning the use of declaratory judgments as a <br />vehicle for forcing the permitting of wells for which no permits <br />have been sought and no application made, see Three Bells Ranch. <br />Assocs. v. Cache La Poudre Water Users Ass'n, 758 P.2d 164 <br />(Colo. 1988), we have never before suggested that extraction <br />alone could satisfy the beneficial use requirement. On the <br />contrary, in the so- called gravel cases, we went to <br />extraordinary lengths to classify collateral displacements of <br />water as wells needing a permit solely because accompanying <br />statutorily- required reclamation plans would have applied the <br />water to a beneficial use. Id. at 174 -75; Zigan Sand & Gravel, <br />Inc. v. Cache La Poudre Water Users Ass'n, 758 P.2d 175, 181 -82 <br />(Colo. 1988). Far from holding that the diversion of water <br />occurring as a by- product of gravel mining would be a beneficial <br />use in itself, we discovered an intent to appropriate in the <br />3 <br />