8283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

future development. Appropriating all the remaining flows for instream use may maximize the utilization of western rivers. Even without considering this newer set of rationales, "minimum flow" limitations in many state laws have not meant a single, low flow value, and do not necessarily preclude the appropriation of upside-down instream flow water rights. In Nebraska, the rate and timing of flow for an instream flow water right is limited by statute to "the minimum necessary to maintain the instream use or uses for which the appropriation is requested" (Neb. Rev. Stat. 946-2, 115(4)). In the first far-ranging review ofthis statute, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the purpose of the instream flow water right at issue was to maintain the fishery in the protected river reach, and that the habitat quality to keep the fishery from deteriorating was only provided by an optimum range of instream flows (In re Application A-16642, Nebraska Games and Parks Commission v. 25 Corporation, 463 NW2d 591 (Nebraska 1990). The court then reasoned that the optimum instream flows for this purpose was the minimum permitted under the Nebraska statute, and that lower flows under which some fish might survive but which would not maintain the current fishery, were not mandated. The court even suggested that appropriation of the "entire unappropriated flow," ifit had been sought, could have been' considered the minimum flow needed to maintain the current fishery. Although the Colorado statute limits instream flow water rights to "minimum stream flows. . . as the CW CB determines may be required .,. to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree"(Colo. Rev. Stat. S 37-92-102(b)(3)), the CWCB has found that all of the remaining flows of the Hang Lake tributaries were the minimum streamflow reasonably necessary to preserve that especially scenic and popular, natural environment. Idaho's statute conspicuously limits the appropriation an instream flow water right to the "minimum flow. .. and not the ideal or most desirable flow. . . "(Idaho Code S 42-1503(d)). Yet, this statute did not block the appropriation of the entire 200 cfs outflow of Minnie Miller Springs for an instream flow water right.4 Wyoming's statute limits instream flow water rights to the". . .minimum amount of water necessary.. ."(Wyo. Rev. Stat. S 41-3-1003(b)), yet the Game and Fish Department generally recommends flows levels to maintain or improve fisheries that are closer to optimum flows for those purposes, and these recommendations are often accepted by the State Engineer in granting the instream water right (Gillilan and Brown 1977: 131). The key question under state law is what is the objective or purpose of the instream flow water right. Where the purpose of the water right is the protection of relatively undeveloped instream habitat, the minimum amount ofthe instream flow water right can certainly be all the remaining, unappropriated flow. As with federally reserved water rights, a balance can also be struck under state law between the use of instream flows for ecological purposes and their development by directly reserving water for development. The upside-down instream flow water right will then protect a minimum 4 Where state procedural law, as in Idaho, mandates that water rights be defmed in terms of numerical units of acre-feet or cfs, a narrative upside-down instream flow right would be not be legal. In this case, the upside-down instream flow right could be numerically expressed as being equal to or less than the highest natural flow. 18