25 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 3/18/2008
• Description: ISF Section - 2009 Instream Flow Appropriations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

oriented approach to considering ISF recommendations should be abandoned in favor of a
prioritization approach to considering recommendations. In general, prioritization of ISF rights
would involve a collaborative process by which multiple stakeholders identify and prioritize
streams for protection based on one or more sets of natural environment attributes, with issues
fully vetted in a public process with Board involvement. Some of the key factors supporting a
prioritization approach include:
1. The IBCC and SWSI efforts both use an approach by which stakeholders prioritize non-
consumptive needs, including ISF rights, based on a set of identified stream attributes
with the goal of achieving a balance between consumptive needs and non-consumptive
needs. The basin rotation approach would limit the ability of all the Roundtables to
effectively participate in the ISF Program in a timely manner.
2. Recommending entities often prioritize proposed ISF rights that they are interested in
based on factors such as the presence of unique, threatened or endangered species. A
geographic basin approach unnecessarily limits the recommenders from protecting
sensitive species that are located in multiple basins.
3. The Board's proposed strategic plan revisions require the Stream and Lake Protection
Section to collaborate with state and federal agencies, water users, environmentalists,
recreational interests and the Basin Roundtables to develop an Environmental Plan of
Action to meet environmental needs. A key component of the plan is the prioritization of
ISF recommendations statewide by multiple interests.
In addition to these key factors, recommending entities have concerns that the Basin Rotation
approach unnecessarily restricts their ability to effectively participate in the program because
data collection and resulting recommendations in a given basin may be limited due to above or
below normal basin runoff conditions. This is a situation that occurred last year in Water
Division 6.
In summary, Staff has found the basin rotation approach to be unpractical given the new
emphasis by the Roundtables and others on indentifying and prioritizing non-consumptive needs
across the state. Abetter approach would be to continue to develop an Environmental Plan of
Action in accordance with the strategic plan by which the CWCB, recommending entities, the
Roundtables and other stakeholders jointly identify common ISF goals and priorities for
inclusion into the Program.
Although there has been significant progress among the Roundtables to address non-
consumptive uses, it will likely take additional time before a working environmental plan of
action can be developed. As a result, Staff will continue to process and internally prioritize
recommendations when necessary based on staff resources, data needs, and Board direction.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board eliminate the basin rotation approach for considering new
appropriations with the goal of replacing it with a prioritization approach that is based on the
Environmental Plan of Action as outlined in the Board's revised strategic plan. Staff further
recommends, that in the interim, the Board allow staff to internally prioritize recommendations
by taking into account staff resources, data needs, and Board direction.