Laserfiche WebLink
<br />have been pragmatic about whether the instream property right is <br />privately or publicly held. <br />The Conservancy thinks the prospects for its strategy are <br />promising in Colorado. The water markets in Colorado are <br />probably better developed than any other state in the West <br />because of Colorado's rigorous system of adjudications, and <br />because of the experience in this state in changing water rights. <br />Our business is more uncertain and perhaps more expensive in <br />other western states which are just beginning to adjudicate water <br />rights comprehensively, and where the transfer of water rights <br />from one use to another is not as practiced. Colorado also <br />recognizes vested property rights in the potential to develop <br />water, and therefore presents an opportunity to resolve conflicts <br />over the future of relatively undeveloped rivers in the <br />marketplace. And, we are finding that the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board is willing to accommodate creatively our <br />private interest in protecting instream flows. <br />II. The G. Berkeley Ditch Case. <br />This transaction was The Nature Conservancy's first attempt <br />at its marketplace strategy for instream flows in Colorado and <br />might be considered a precursor to S.B. 91 in 1986 and S.B. 212 <br />in 1987 which elaborated on the statutory authority for <br />converting already appropriated water rights to instream use <br />4