the service of all those desiring the use of the same, those using the water for domestic purposes shall have the preference over those claiming for any other purpose, and those using the water for agricultural purposes shall have preference over those using the same for manufacturing purposes. Colo. Const. Art. 16, § 6 (emphasis added). As Vidler held, the constitution guarantees a right to appropriate and not to speculate. Vidler, 594 P.2d at 568; Denver v. Northern Colorado Water Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 408, 276 P.2d 992, 1009 (1954). The Colorado Constitution and its implementing statutes focus on an applicant’s ability to put the water to some beneficial use and not on the availability of that water. See, e.g., Southeastern Water Conservancy Dist. v. Rich, 625 P.2d 977 (Colo.1981) (<HOLDING>). Vidler correctly warned that to do otherwise
holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that a new appropriator will be allowed if no injury will occur to senior users on an over appropriated river holding that a constructive trust will be imposed where the evidence is clear and convincing that one party will be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the entire property holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that in the federal noncriminal law context a judicial decision can be applied nonretroactively if it established a new principle of law if such a limitation will avoid substantial inequitable results and if retrospective application will not retard the purpose and effect of the new rule