argue that Applicant should have captioned the Application as one to “appropriate” surface water, thus giving notice to other water users on the Rio Grande. Protestants’reply brief summarizes: “By failing to caption the Application as an ‘appropriation,’ [Applicant] disingenuously implies there will be no new use of water and thus no impact on other users. Any new use of water in a fully appropriated basin has potential impact on other appropriated.” 8 Cnty. of Amador v. El Dorado Cnty. Water Agency, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 66, 84-85 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (“Water for hydroelectric purposes may be diverted but ultimately is returned to the water system; it is usufructuary in nature and non[-] consumptive.”); see Fed. Power Comm'n v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239, 246-47 (1954) (<HOLDING>); Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Fed. Energy
holding that a water right is a property right created by a person appropriating unappropriated water and applying it to a beneficial use 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 recognizing the right to use water to generate power holding that the legislative assembly intended the water right certificate not the permit even when followed by a beneficial use to mark the point at which a water right becomes vested holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use