and County of Denver I"). These issues include the "volume and scope" of particular reserved rights claims: "(alll such questions, including the volume and seope of particular reserved rights, are federal questions which, if preserved, can be reviewed [by the United States Supreme Court] after final judgment by the Colorado court." Eagle County, 401 U.S. at 526, 91 S.Ct. 998. Through the McCarran Amendment, Congress intended "to promote certainty in water allocation by subjecting undeclared and unquantified federal water rights to state adjudication." United States v. Bell, 724 P.2d 631, 642 (Colo.1986). Issues involving the interaction of state water rights with federal water rights are within the state court's authority to determine. Division No. 5, 401 U.S. at 529-80, 91 S.Ct. 1003 (<HOLDING>). In Bell, as here, we had before us a C.R.C.P.
holding that if there is a collision between prior adjudicated rights and reserved rights of the united states the federal question can be preserved in the state decision and brought here for review holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied holding that a constitutional challenge to a statute is not properly preserved for appellate review if as here it is not presented to the trial court and is raised for the first time on appeal