Laserfiche WebLink
miners' proposals to put the diverted water to approved wildlife <br />and recreational uses. <br />Similarly, the flood control cases relied on by the <br />majority cannot stand for the proposition that the relocation of <br />water, as long as it is done efficiently, constitutes a <br />beneficial use. See Pueblo West Metro. Dist. v. Se. Colo. Water <br />Conservancy Dist., 689 P.2d 594, 603 (Colo. 1984); see also Bd. <br />of County Commis v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 14 P.3d <br />325, 338 (Colo. 2000). Thin as our rationale in Pueblo West may <br />have.been, it dealt with the limited situation of relocation and <br />storage for a public purpose, implicitly approved by the General <br />Assembly in its provision for the creation of conservancy <br />districts, having both the right and duty to acquire and hold <br />water rights as necessary to prevent flooding. We there <br />reasoned that the legislature would not have granted conservancy <br />districts these powers unless it considered flood prevention a <br />beneficial use. <br />Whether the General Assembly chooses to authorize the <br />displacement of waters of the state for the production of <br />methane gas, and if so, in what manner it chooses to best <br />regulate that process, I consider to be matters entirely within <br />its purview. I do not believe, however, it has yet done so. By <br />so loosening the requirement of beneficial use for valid <br />appropriations, and by tying its expanded definition of <br />M <br />