My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7919
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7919
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:57 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 4:26:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7919
Author
White, M. R., F. D. Valdez and M. D. White.
Title
Instream Flow Negotiation
USFW Year
1980.
USFW - Doc Type
Review Of Practices.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
INSTREAM FLOW NEGOTIATION: REVIEW OF PRACTICES <br />INTRODUCTION <br />The management of water resources has always been a volatile and <br />complicated problem, especially in the West. Except, perhaps, for water <br />quality matters, no other water resources issue has been more difficult to <br />deal with than instream flow -- the retention of stream flows in amounts and <br />qualities necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. The <br />instream flow issue has caused a remarkable amount of negotiation because of <br />the natural tension between those who want to leave water in streams for such <br />purposes and others who have historically diverted and impounded water for <br />consumptive uses. If negotiations fail, then issues can be resolved by the <br />courts or arbitration. <br />When a dispute has reached litigation or arbitration, the result is not <br />always predictable or controllable by the participants. However, if a dispute <br />can be settled by negotiation, each party retains some control over the result <br />and saves time and money. <br />Fortunately, the lessons learned from early failures can still be <br />profitably applied. The first flurry of instream flow litigation has had one <br />good effect: the rough scope and extent of stream flows have been <br />preliminarily defined by the courts, State and Federal regulations, and <br />inter-agency negotiations. All segments of the water resources community now <br />have preliminary notions of those situations in which instream uses legally
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.