adjudicating water rights administered by the State Engineer. Section 25-8-104(1) of the WQCA explicitly provides that: No provision of this article shall be interpreted so as to supercede, abrogate, or impair rights to divert water and to apply water to beneficial uses in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of article XVI of the constitution of the state of Colorado, compacts entered into by the state of Colorado, or the provisions of articles 80 to 98 of title 37, C.R.S8., or Colorado court determinations with respect to the determination and administration of water rights. § 25-8-104(1) (emphasis added). We read these provisions of the WCQA to allow the WCQA to work within the context of the prior appropriation system. See City of Thornton v. Bijou Irr. Co., 926 P.2d 1, 66 (Colo.1996) (<HOLDING>). Because the WQCA explicitly provides that it
recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest holding that the legislature clearly intended that authority over water quality not be exercised in a manner that significantly compromises the appropriative rights of present or future water users holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially holding that mandamus was appropriate to require the director to deliver the full decreed water rights of a water right holder recognizing a presumption that the issuance of a permit by the state engineer allowing recognized irrigation water rights to be shifted to other users works as severance of those water rights from the land