Laserfiche WebLink
the water right for the protection of the environment including ' <br />instream flow uses11.7 <br />This covenant seems straightforward, but its implications <br />are unclear if the Conservancy ever became dissatisfied with the <br />zeal with which the Conservation Board exercised and defended the <br />G. Berkeley Ditch water right. On one hand, the Conservancy <br />might argue that the Conservation Board was no longer "holding" <br />this water right for instream purposes if it was not opposing <br />potentially injurious water right filings or was not vigorously <br />exercising or calling the priority of the priority of the water <br />right. On the otherhand, the Conservation Board might believe <br />that this covenant would only be violated if it attempted to <br />change the water right to some other use besides an instream use <br />through the City of Boulder. Another troublesome question is <br />whether The Nature Conservancy could enforce the change decree <br />privately, if the reverter was ever triggered. In hindsight we <br />suggest that such issues be addressed more explicitly as will be <br />illustrated in some of the more contemporary agreements discussed <br />below. <br />The G. Berkeley Ditch transaction opened the door for a <br />much more comprehensive approach to protecting instream flows on <br />Boulder Creek as it winds through the corridor park which the <br />7 Warranty Deed from The Nature Conservancy to the State of <br />Colorado, March 24, 1984. <br />7