WWRC 97-05rr
10 Years Down The Road: A Game and Fish Perspective of the State's Instream Flow Law
Abstract
Beginning well before passage of the state's instream
flow law in 1986, there have basically been two
perspectives on the subject of instream flows. One
perspective has opposed the very concept, fearing
generally that recognition of instream flows would,
among other things 1) diminish existing water rights,
2) negatively affect the state's ability to use all the
water allotted under interstate compacts and supreme
court decrees, 3) be impractical without storage
specifically for this new water right and 4) limit
traditional water development opportunities. The
other perspective is generally supportive of instream
flows. They thought instream flows would restore
flows in dewatered stream segments, expand
recreational opportunities and related economies, and
put some legitimate controls on water development to
name a few goals. Both felt very strongly about the
rightness of their cause and both saw (and many still
see) the state's instream flow law as validating their
concerns.
Having worked with the instream flow process now
for just over 10 years, some patterns and tendencies
are becoming evident that in some cases support, but
in other cases refute, many of the above misgivings
and hopes. The following list of the Top Ten
Problems With The State's Instream Flow Law is
based on this history and shows one perspective of
how the law really works.
Water Resources Publications List
Water Resources Data System Library |
Water Resources Data System Homepage
