Cautious reading says that C could be anywhere - allowing lease holder at B to “shop” the use - or speculate. (Say it ain’t so.) It also may leave the owner A without much of a say in the matter, which could be why there is still some opposition from cattle and wool growers.
Like HB181, SB309 deals with water leasing for streamflow and wildlife which sounds so nice. Because of broad definitions and the absence of criteria it is at least conceivable this wildlife water could be used throughout that steam system for any beneficial use. So water leased for fish could be leased again for compact deliveries downstream. Is that wrong? Well it’s innovative and it isn’t just about the fish.