7128 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

National Water Summary 1987-Water Supply and Use: INSTREAM WATER USE 115 the data demonstrate that some methods are beginning to be accepted as "standard"; for example, the IFIM (a project impact assessment method) and the Tennant Method (a preliminary planning method) are used by 38 and 16 States, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Since the mid-1960's, instream uses of water for fisheries and environmental purposes have gained legal legitimacy along with the traditional offstream water uses, such as irrigation and domestic uses, and the commercially oriented instream uses, such as navi- gation and hydroelectric power generation. There is a continuing trend toward adoption of instream protection laws and policies by the States, although the legal approach to instream flows differs from State to State. Each State appears to adjust its water program to fit the circumstances of abundance, allocation law, and development. As a result, traditional water- management organizations are accommodating instream uses in their day-to-day operations. The Federal Reserved Water Rights doctrine has opened the door for water rights to be claimed to carry out the purpose of certain Federal lands. However, the actual quantities of these rights typically are deter- mined in State water-adjudication procedures. Instream uses for environmental purposes also have gained scientific legitimacy, as certain methods of determining instream flow are becoming broadly recognized as "standard," in contrast to the earlier regionally oriented approaches. Questions currently under discussion center around the issue of how much reliance should be placed on the results of simulated models as compared with field observations. Although every method is based on some stream measurements, there is a question of the extent to which extrapola- tions from existing data can take the place of long- term field observations. SELECTED REFERENCES Ausness, R.C., 1983, Water rights legislation in the East-A program for reform: Williamsburg, Va., William and Mary Law Review, v. 24, no. 4, p. 547-590. Bovee, K.D., 1982, A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12, FWS/OBS-82126, 248 p. Collings, M.R., Smith, R.W., and Higgins, G.T., 1972, The hydrology of four streams in western Washington related to several Pacific salmon species: U.S Geolog- ical Survey Water-Supply Paper 1968, 109 p. Dewsnup, R.L., and Jensen, D.W., 1977, State laws and instream flows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-77/27, 72 p. Dooley, J.M., 1976, Application of U.S. Bureau of Recla- mation water surface profile program (WSP), in Orsborn, J. F., and Allman, C. H., eds., Instream flow needs: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, v. II, p. 478-495. Gould, G.A., 1977, Preserving instream flows under the appropriation doctrine-Problems and possibilities, in Lamb, B.L., ed., Protecting instream flows under Western water law-Selected papers: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Instream Flow Information Paper No. 2, FWS/OBS-77/47, p. 3-21. Hyra, Ronald, 1978, Methods of assessing instream flows for recreation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Instream Flow Information Paper No. 16, FWS/OBS-78/34, 34 p. Isaacson, J.A., 1976, Determining instream flows using the sag tape method and R-2 CROSS x Computer Program, in Orsborn, J.F., and Allman, C.H., eds., Instream flow needs: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, v. 11, p. 314-321. Kalitowski, Tom, and Featherstone, Jeff, 1978, eds., Sym- posium on instream flow management-State of the art: Bloomington, Minn., Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, Proceedings, 32 p. Lamb, B.L., 1986, Instream flow laws and technology-A survey: Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, unpublished paper, 16 p. 1989, Quantifying instream flows-Matching policy and technology, in MacDonnell, L., Rice, T., and Shupe, S., eds., Instream flow protection in the West: Boulder, Colo., University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law Center, p. 23-41. Lamb, B.L., and Doerksen, H.R., 1979, Managing the rippling stream-A model of decisionmaking in natural resource administration: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 15, no. 6, p. 1707-1715. Lamb, B.L., and Meshorer, Hank, 1983, Comparing instream flow programs-A report on current status, in Borreth, J., Hasfurther, V.R., and Burman, R.D., eds., Specialty conference on advance in irrigation and drainage-Surviving the external pressures: New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings, p. 435-443. McKinney, M.J., and Taylor, J.G., 1988, Western State in- stream flow programs-A comparative assessment: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Instream Flow Infor- mation Paper No. 18, Biological Report 89(2), 78 p. Milhous, R.T., 1984, The physical habitat simulation system for instream flow studies, in Conference on Comput- ing in Civil Engineering, 3d, San Diego, Calif., Proceedings, p. 19-29. Olson, F.W., White, R.G., and Hamare, R.H., 1985, eds., Symposium on small hydropower and fisheries: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, Proceed- ings, 497 p. Orsborn, J.F., and Allman, C.H., eds., 1976, Instream flow needs: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, v. I, 451 p; v. 11, 657 p. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, 1972, Instream flow requirement workshop: Vancouver, Wash., Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Proceedings, 85 p. President's Task Force on Non-Indian Federal Water Rights, 1980, Final report: Washington, D.C., unpublished report, 158 p. Shupe, S.J., 1988, Keeping the water flowing-Streamflow protection program strategies and issues in the West, in Instream flow protection in the Western United States-A practical symposium, March 31-April 1, 1988: Boulder, Colo., University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law Center, 33 p. Solley, W.B., Merk, C.F., and Pierce, R.R., 1988, Esti- mated use of water in the United States in 1985: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1004, 82 p. Somach, S.L., 1987, The financial impact of instream pro- tection: Vail, Colo., Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, 33d Annual Institute, p. 25-1 to 25-35. Stalnaker, C.B., and Arnette, J.L., 1976, Methodologies for the determination of stream resource flow requirements-An assessment: Washington, D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 199 p. Tennant, D.L. , 1976, Instream flow regimens for fish, wild- life, recreation, and related environmental resources: Fisheries, v. 1, no. 4, p. 6-10.