My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8283
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
8283
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:47 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 1:33:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8283
Author
Silk, N., J. McDonald and R. Wigington.
Title
Turning Instream Flow Water Rights Upside Down.
USFW Year
n.d.
USFW - Doc Type
Boulder, CO\
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Each of the above instream flow water rights are quantified conventionally, <br />except for the last component of the Piedra proposal. That is, they all directly specify the <br />amount of flow that should be left in the stream and, indirectly, define the amount <br />reserved for development. These amounts and the structure of the instream flow water <br />right can progress in complexity toward variable and dynamic flow patterns, like the <br />Piedra proposal. Such complex instream flow rights may not be easy to formulate or <br />implement, however, and may still not be dynamic enough to fully protect natural flow <br />patterns. <br /> <br />Upside-down Instream Flow Water Rights <br /> <br />Can the difficulty of quantifying and exercising complex or dynamic instream <br />flow water rights be addressed by turning conventional instream flow water rights upside- <br />down? Perhaps. When instream flow water rights are turned upside-down, the quantity <br />of water needed for the river ecosystem is not directly specified in single or variable <br />amounts. Instead, the sequence is reversed. First, the demands for water development <br />are defined and met, then the rest of the water in the stream is allocated to serve <br />ecosystem needs. The presumptions are that the dynamic nature of natural flow patterns <br />cannot be completely described or fully predicted, and that simply protecting such natural <br />patterns as they are, or as modified by a specified increment of water development, is <br />legally necessary and beneficial. Figure 4 illustrates the naturally variable flows that <br />could be protected with such an upside-down instream flow water right. The sum of the <br />upside-down instream flow water right and the water reserved for development equals the <br />total natural flow hydro graph, which is not depicted in subsequent figures. <br /> <br /> 8000 <br /> 7000 <br /> 6000 <br />,.-... <br />~ 5000 <br />(,) <br />'-' <br />~ <br />0 4000 <br />r+: <br />~ <br />v 3000 <br />J:: <br />rJ) <br /> 2000 <br /> 1000 <br /> <br />Water Development <br />Potential ______ <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br />~'l <br />fl <br />~,\ <br /> <br />Upside-down <br />I nstream Flow <br />Water Right <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Oet Noy Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May lun Jul Aug Sep <br />FIGURE 4. Upside-down lnstream Flow Water Right <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.