in the legislature's instream flow and RICD provisions," maj. op. 125. One of the problems the legislature sought to address in limiting the availability of RICDs was the concern that private parties could tie up excessive amounts of water in the stream, with little financial outlay. See Upper CGun-nison, 109 P.8d at 600-01. Diverting water for purposes of a flow-through right, by contrast, requires an appropriator to invest in a diversion structure. Thus, despite its concerns about the notion of instream appropriations, the legislature did not abrogate this court's holding in City of Fort Collins that an appropriator may divert water from a natural stream for beneficial uses including recreational, piscatorial, and wildlife uses. Compare City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 920, 930-31 (<HOLDING>), with § 87-92-103(7) (defining "[dliversion"
holding that fort collinss nature dam which diverted water from the poudre river into its historic channel past a nature center removes  water from its natural course and puts that water to a beneficial use holding that a water courts historic use determinations may not be reviewed under the retained jurisdiction provision 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 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 holding that a water right is a property right created by a person appropriating unappropriated water and applying it to a beneficial use