Laserfiche WebLink
Recreational Instream Flows - Questions, Concerns, and Statutory Considerations <br />of RISF water rights are to be examined.' <br />1. If a RISF right is adjudicated, must it be for the minimum flow needed to achieve <br />the beneficial use cited? Should it specify the range of flows that are reasonable to <br />accomplish the beneficial use up to the maximum amount of flows that would be <br />needed to meet RISF needs? <br />Discussion: <br />The definition of beneficial use is: "The use of that amount of water that is reasonable <br />and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the <br />purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made ..." <br />If the filing for a RISF right and the decree for that right specifies the minimum and <br />maximum diversion needed to accomplish the designated beneficial use, this principal <br />would then make the RISF right similar to other water rights for conventional beneficial <br />uses such as irrigation, municipal, and industrial uses. Water rights for conventional <br />beneficial uses are granted to satisfy the needs of the designated beneficial use and to do <br />so without waste. Such uses have a specified or an implied minimum effective diversion <br />rate of some amount greater than zero. That minimum diversion must be at least the <br />amount necessary to convey the diverted water to the point of beneficial use and to realize <br />a beneficial use of the water so conveyed. If that minimum diversion is not present, <br />diversions of less than that amount would be wasteful, and the imposition of a call to <br />divert less than the minimum effective amount would, and should, be considered a futile <br />call. Likewise, if the minimum flow is available to satisfy the RISF need, would any <br />greater "diversion" be considered a waste if the additional water is needed by another, <br />junior water right? <br />In the case of CWCB instream flows, the maximum flow rate sought is designated within <br />the decree with the implication that any flow greater than zero in the designated stream <br />reach would incrementally be a benefit to the stream and would help to preserve the <br />' The questions are in no particular order and the order of the questions should not be <br />construed by the reader to be representative of the importance or the priority of the question or of <br />the issues raised and discussed. As this document is intended to be a "thought piece" concerning <br />RISF, the format includes a discussion of issues following the question. The discussions <br />presented below should not be interpreted, at this early stage, to be representative of positions <br />being taken or advocated on a particular issue. <br />2- <br />