Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />THE PRESERVATION OF INSTREAM FLOWS IN THE WESTERN STATES <br /> <br />To accommodate the 19th and early 20th century period of expansion into the <br /> <br />dry lands of the western states, those states adopted appropriative systems of <br /> <br />water rights. Under this system, the appropriator of a water right typically <br /> <br />needs only describe the intended purpose and the procedure for diversion, and, <br /> <br />so long as the use is deemed "beneficial" under the state's laws, a priority <br /> <br />right to a certain quantity of water is granted in accordance with priorities <br /> <br /> <br />established by the time of the application. Previously, state laws typically <br /> <br /> <br />stressed consumptive uses, but more recently the need for water conservation has <br /> <br /> <br />become more pressing, and various states have provided for "instream flows" as a <br /> <br />statutorily recognized use. That is, in those states it is no longer required <br /> <br />that the water be diverted and "captured" for private consumption to qualify as <br /> <br />a use which is protected by the state. This report provides a brief summary of <br /> <br />the statutory provisions adopted by western states to preserve instream flows. <br /> <br />The statutory provisions can be broken down into two categories: first, the <br /> <br />inclusion of instreamflows as a statutorily recognized beneficial use, and second, <br /> <br />the requirement of the preservation of minimum instream flows by the appropriate <br /> <br />government entity. It should be noted that there are at least two significant <br /> <br />legal questions regarding the provisions that have yet to be fully resolved in <br /> <br />the courts. First, it is not clear whether a private citizen may take advantage <br /> <br />of the inclusion of instream flows as a beneficial use. Colorado expressly limits <br /> <br />such appropriation to the state, whereas most of the other states have no such <br /> <br />express limitation. Second, it is not clear what legal significance attaches to <br />