Laserfiche WebLink
Recreational Instream Flows - Questions, Concerns, and Statutory Considerations <br />Recreational Instream Flows <br />Questions, Concerns, and Statutory Consideration <br />A. Introduction <br />Following is a discussion of various issues that are associated with Recreational Instream Flows <br />(RISF). Issues discussed include, but are not limited to, legal and administrative questions, <br />philosophical concerns, and potential legislative or statutory considerations. RISF, as referred to <br />in this discussion may include those flows believed needed for water craft navigation or <br />body- contact water sports or water activities, or may include flows that are believed necessary to <br />enhance the habitat or biological environment for aquatic species that provide the public or <br />private sector with recreational activities such as fishing or hunting. <br />RISF associated with the "mechanical' use of the stream, such as floating or boating activities on <br />the water, are the underlying theme of this discussion. RISF associated with the "biological' use <br />of the stream are referred to but are not discussed in as much detail. This in no way implies a <br />greater or lesser value of "biological' versus "mechanical' RISF. Because the "mechanical' uses <br />are not as complex and may be more easily understood, "mechanical' RISF are used to raise the <br />fundamental issues or questions associated with RISF. Addressing these fundamental issues will <br />provide adequate material for initial discussions, while at the same time, will hopefully not <br />introduce what might appear to some to be an overwhelming number of questions as could be the <br />case if both "mechanical' and "biological' issues are raised in this discussion.' <br />B. Legal and Administrative Questions <br />Following are a number of legal and/or administrative questions concerning RISF. Options or <br />alternative courses of action are in some cases raised to encourage additional discussion, and are <br />hopefully of sufficient merit to be worthy of future exploration. As can be seen, many questions <br />are raised that currently have no answers, but that must be considered or addressed if all aspects <br />' Questions associated with "biological' RISF may add a degree of complexity that is <br />believed to be unnecessary at this stage of the discussion. Additional issues related to <br />"biological" RISF will have to be addressed at some time in the future as discussions progress. <br />Examples of those "biological' RISF issues may include, but will not be limited to: temporary or <br />permanent conversion or transfer of existing conventional water rights to use as RISF; stacking <br />water rights for RISF on top of existing CWCB Instream Flows that may enhance streamflow <br />conditions above those provided by existing CWCB Instream Flows; do the stacked water rights <br />(if such stacking occurs with the transfer of more senior water rights), in essence, supplant the <br />existing CWCB Instream Flow filings; the definition of the beneficiaries that would benefit from <br />a "biological' RISF, and; will the definition of the beneficiaries vary depending on the entity <br />holding the RISF. <br />1- <br />