Laserfiche WebLink
<br />proposed amendment does not make it impossible <br /> <br /> <br />for a private party like The Nature Conservancy <br /> <br /> <br />to effectively act as a real estate agent for <br /> <br /> <br />the CWCB or the U.s. The Conservancy could <br /> <br /> <br />explore the market and obtain options fixing <br /> <br /> <br />price and the seller's willingness, and then <br /> <br /> <br />assign the option to the CWCB or the U.S. which <br /> <br /> <br />could take title and change the water right to <br /> <br /> <br />instream flow protection. The Conservancy <br /> <br /> <br />could also help the CWCB or the U.s. raise <br /> <br /> <br />money to exercise the option. The conservancy <br /> <br /> <br />could even hold the acquired water rights on a <br /> <br /> <br />short term ba'si s for la ter conveyance to the <br /> <br /> <br />CWCB or the U.s. In such a case, the <br /> <br /> <br />Conservancy would not be acting much <br /> <br /> <br />differently than a private water broker who <br /> <br /> <br />purchased agricultural water rights for resale <br /> <br /> <br />to a municipality and who lacked the legal <br /> <br /> <br />capacity to put the acquired water rights to <br /> <br /> <br />municipal use. The Conservancy would of course <br /> <br /> <br />n.ot seek to profit on resale, and would only be <br /> <br /> <br />interested in protecting instream habitat. But <br /> <br /> <br />the temporary acquisition of a water right by <br /> <br /> <br />the Conservancy with th~ intent to convey it to <br /> <br /> <br />the CWCB or the U.S. for change to instream <br /> <br /> <br />flow protection would not automatically <br /> <br />26 <br />