8093

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8093
• Author: Natural Resources Law Center.
• Title: Instream Flow Protection In The West - Revised Edition - 1993.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

16.

This fact was not lost on the Idaho legislature: "The legislature further declares that minimum
flow is a beneficial use of water. of the streams of this state for the purpose of protecting such
waters from interstate diversion to other states or by the federal government for use outside the
boundaries of the State of Idaho. Minimum stream flows as established hereunder shall be prior
in right to any claims asserted by any other state, governmental agency, or person for out of state
diversion. It is, therefore, necessary that authority be granted to receive, consider, approve or
reject applications for permits to appropriate water of the streams of this state to such beneficial
uses to preserve such water from subsequent appropriation to other beneficial uses under the
provisions of chapter 2, title 42, Idaho Code." Minimum Stream Flow Act, IDAHO CODE ~ 42-
1501 (1991).

17.

The question has arisen twice in Colorado, Concerning the Applications for Water Rights of S1.
VrainlLeft Hand Water Conservancy District and City of Longmont, Colo., Case Nos. 85 CW 456 and
85 CW 457 (Water Ct., Div. No.1 filed Dee. 31, 1985); City of Aurora v. Division Engineer for
Water Division No.5, 799 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1990). Each time, however, a resolution was reached on
before a judicial determination.

18.

Lori Potter, The Public's Role in the Acquisition and Enforcement of Instream Flows, 23 LAND &
WATER L REV. 419, 428-30 (1988).

19.

See, e.g., City and County of Denver v. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dis1., 276 P.2d 992,
1012 (Colo. 1954) ("[W]here the interests of beneficiaries are not represented or protected by their
trustees, the beneficiaries become proper and necessary parties with the right to appear and
present their case.").

20.

See, e.g., ALAsKA STAT. ~~ 46.15.040 and -.080(a) (1992), 11 ALAsKA ADMIN. CODE ~ 93.930(c);
MIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ~~ 45-142 and -143 (1987); CAL. WATER CODE ~~ 1225, 1255 (1971 and
West Supp. 1993); IDAHO CODE ~~ 42-203A(5)(e), 42-203C, 42-222(1), 42-1501, 42-1503(b)
(1990); KAN. STAT. ANN. ~~ 818-705 and -711 (1989); MONT. CODE ANN. ~~ 85-2-302 and 311(2)
(1991); NEB. REV. STAT. ~~ 46-233, -234, -2,116 (1988 and Supp. 1991); NEV. REv. STAT.
~~ 533.325, -.370(3) and 534.040(1); N.M. STAT. ANN. ~~ 72-5-1, -6, -7, 72-12-3 and -3.E (Michie
1985); N.D. CENT. CODE ~~ 61-04-02 and -06 (1985 and Supp. 1991); OR. REV. STAT. ~~ 537.130
and -170(4) (1988); S.D. CODIFIED LAws ANN. ~~ 46-1-15, -5-10, -6-3 and -2A-9 (1987); TEx.
WATER CODE ANN. ~~ 11.121 and -.134(3) (West 1988); UTAH CODE ANN. ~~ 73-3-1 and -8(1)
(1989); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. ~~ 90.03.250, -290, -44.050 and -44.060 (West 1992); and WYo.
STAT. ~~ 41-4-503, 41-3-930 to -932 (1977 and Supp. 1992); see generally, Clyde, Legal and
Institutional Barriers to Transfers and Reallocation of Water Resources, 29 S.D. L REV. 232, 243-44
(1984); Clyde, Allocation of Water for Resource Development, 14 NAT. RESOURCES L 519 (1981);
Robie, The Public Interest in Water Rights Administration, 23 RocKY MTN. MIN. L. INST. 917
(1977).

21.

COLO. REV. STAT. ~ 37-92-103(3) (1990).

22.

In 1969 the Nevada legislature amended the state's water code to recognize recreation as a
beneficial use: "The use of water. . . for any recreational purpose, is hereby declared to be a
beneficial use." 1969 Nev. Stat. 141 (codified at NEV. REV. STAT. ~ 533.030(2) (1991)). In 1988
the Nevada Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this action implicitly repealed Nevada's
statutory diversion requirement and allowed instream flow water rights to be protected under state
law. State v. Morros, 766 P.2d 263 (Nev. 1988). The case involved an application for a water
right by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to protect a trout fishery at Blue Lake in

2-17