Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., <br /> <br />Con~ervancy District v. City of Florence, <br />688 P2d 715 (colo. 1984); Colorado River <br />Water Conservation District v. Denver, 640 <br />P2d 1139 (Colo. 1982); Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District v. Vidler Tunnel <br />Water Co., 594 P2d 566 (Colo. 1979). <br />B. At first blush, one might think that the <br />Colorado Water Courts were edging toward water <br />development planning and toward deciding which <br />proposed water projects are the most efficient <br />and economical. <br />1. In Colorado River Water Conservation <br />District v. Denver and TranS-County Water, <br />the Colorado Supreme Court talked about the <br />diligence issue in terms of whether <br />continuing the subject conditional water <br />rights was the "most" beneficial use of <br />water. 640 P2d at 1142; 727 p2d at 65. In <br />both cases, the Court also suggested that <br />the standard for diligence may be higher <br />where competing water developers could show <br />that continuation of a more senior <br />conditional water right frustrated their <br />legitimate water needs. 640 P2d at 1141; <br />727 P2d at 65. <br />2. A recent ruling by the Division No.5 Water <br /> <br />5 <br />