Laserfiche WebLink
within its natural course or location by some structure or device <br /> for a beneficial use thus may result in a valid appropriation. " <br /> Id. at 930 (emphasis supplied) . <br /> After acknowledging that the General Assembly had vested <br /> the CWCB with exclusive authority to appropriate minimum stream <br /> flows, the Court specifically held that this express legislative <br /> grant did "not detract from the right to divert and to put to <br /> beneficial use unappropriated waters by removal or control. " Id. <br /> The Court further held "that water may be appropriated by a <br /> structure or device which either removes water away from its <br /> natural course or location or which controls water within its <br /> natural watercourse, assuming such action puts the water to bene- <br /> ficial use. " Id. (emphasis supplied) . In support of its hold- <br /> ings, the Court reasoned that just because "an appropriation of a <br /> minimum stream flow by the CWCB must put that stream flow to the <br /> beneficial use of the preservation of nature does not mean that <br /> the beneficial uses to which waters controlled by some structure <br /> or device may not also redound to the preservation of piscatorial <br /> and other natural resources. " Id at 931. <br /> Also of relevance to Parks ' application is the Court ' s dis- <br /> position of Thornton' s argument that because Fort Collins had not <br /> claimed a right to exercise dominion and control over the claimed <br /> water after it left the Nature Dam and therefore could not pre- <br /> vent other water users from appropriating that water, Fort Col- <br /> -4- <br />