Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />encroach on the channel and further reduce its capacity. <br /> <br />II. INSTREAM FLOW STRATEGIES OF WESTERN STATES <br /> <br />In recognition of the many benefits of free-flowing waters, <br />most western state legislatures have enacted statutes to protect <br />instream flows. The purposes of these laws typcially incorporate <br />the desire to protect fish life, although the enabling statutes <br />also reflect the variety of values represented by instream <br />waters. For instance, California officials may protect <br />free-flowing water for recreation and the enhancement of wildlife <br />resources. [2] In Idaho, instream flow protection includes the <br />promotion of hydropower [3], while Colorado's statute broadly <br />provides that instream flow rights be designed to "protect the <br />natural environment to, a reasonable degree." [4] Alaska <br />legislators specified that instream flow rights may be created to <br />promote navigation, water quality, fish migration, wildlife <br />habitat, float plane landing, and a number of other beneficial <br />uses. [5] <br />As of 1988, only three of the westernmost states do not have <br />legislatively created programs to promote instream flow <br />protection. (See Appendix A) In two of the states without <br />legislation (Arizona and Nevada), officials have administratively <br />recognized the right to establish instream flow rights under <br />certain conditions independent of expressed legislative <br />authorization. Only New Mexico has elected to neither <br /> <br />-7- <br />