Even if this were a piece in a larger debate, the stance the courts have taken is highly counter-intuitive (although granted it's not represented in this post), and completely opaque to me.

I can understand the concern to preserve the water rights of the most senior people (okay, that's a lie, i think it's stupid, but i'll capitulate to the court's desire to preserve the system). But i just don't understand how this is either a slippery slope (oh! a pun!) to loss of water rights/usage, or how this could possibly materially effect other water usage.

So... yeah, i'm skeptical about the court's position.