Laserfiche WebLink
Salvaged and Saved Water. Can salvaged and saved water from projects in <br />the Grand Valley be used for the RIP? Are there state law or other institutional <br />• impediments to this practice; and if so, how should stakeholders address them? <br />Institutional Responses to Uncertainty. If it does not become technically <br />or biologically feasible to establish a precise or certain relationship between <br />instream flows and protection of habitat for fish recovery, how should <br />stakeholders anticipate and prepare for the response of other agencies (e.g. <br />Bureau of Recreation) and parties to the RIP? <br />3.2.2.3. Category III (Long-Term --Work on Later -- May Become <br />Non-Issues). <br />"Minimum Requirements/Reasonable Degree". Is state statutory language <br />regarding "minimum...stream flows to preserve the natural environment to a <br />reasonable degree" inconsistent with instream flows needed for fish recovery (i.e., <br />is this a less exacting standard than federal law might require); and if so, how <br />should stakeholders respond? <br />Distinctions Between Instream and Consumptive Use Rights. Do the <br />differences in legal criteria and procedures for acquisition of instream and non- <br />mstream water rights give a higher value to the latter; and if so, does this thwart <br />RIP goals? <br />• Condemnation. Dces the prohibition on condemnation present an impediment to <br />protecting instream flows; and if so, how should stakeholders address the issue? <br />3-6 <br />