With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 72-5-24 does not preclude consideration of the Application irrespective of whether it might apply to a change in purpose or diversion of the SJCP water. Of greater import, however, is Protestants’ assertion that the Application runs afoul of Section 72-5-1. Protestants argue that it involves a new use of native Rio Grande water without a corresponding appropriation of water to such a use to justify giving permission to divert the Rio Grande water to accomplish the use. C. The Application Involves a New Beneficial Use of Native Rio Grande Surface Water That Would Require an Appropriation to Enable It {31} Applicant requested a permit to divert native water from the Rio Grande, which is fully appropriated. City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds, 1962-NMSC-173, ¶ 20, 71 N.M. 428, 379 P.2d 73 (<HOLDING>). A fully appropriated basin is one in which no

A: holding that the surface waters of the rio grande are fully appropriated
B: holding that subsequent patent did not convey lands that had previously been appropriated it is a familiar principle of public land law that statutes providing generally for disposal of the public domain are inapplicable to lands which are not unqualifiedly subject to sale and disposition because they have been appropriated to some other purpose the general words of the granting act are to be read as subject to such exception
C: holding that waters in utah are of two classes private and public and title to public waters is in the public all are equal owners that is have coequal rights therein
D: recognizing the position of the ose that the rio grandes surface waters are fully appropriated and that new surface water appropriations are not allowed
A.