Laserfiche WebLink
June 30, 2008 <br />IV. Pros and Cons <br />Pros <br />• The Program requirements to provide flow mitigation are presently in place and <br />operating. <br />• Program flows enhance both peak and low flow periods in the stream segments. <br />• CWCB in- stream flows may provide a permanent protection, even if the Program <br />fails, depending on the parameters of the water rights. <br />Cons <br />• Certainty on the length of the Program is difficult to assess. <br />• Operations are variable, depending upon the yearly basin flow conditions. <br />• It is unclear whether recovery target flows are sufficient to satisfy ORVs. <br />• Location of flow enhancement sources may change over time. More or less water <br />may be available to the stream segments. <br />4A. CWCB INSTREAM FLOW FOR 13ASEFLOW <br />I. Concept <br />The CWCB can protect stream flows in and through a reach between two points on a <br />stream by appropriating new ISF water rights. ISF water rights are held exclusively by <br />the CWCB for minimum stream flows to preserve the natural environment to a <br />reasonable degree, and are adjudicated and administered within the State's water right <br />priority system. <br />II. Benefit to Stream Segments <br />For the segments containing a wild trout fishery, the ISF water rights would be based <br />upon data collection and analysis geared toward the needs of the trout species present, <br />and would establish a water right for those flows that would be administered in priority. <br />The ISF water rights would meet the basic habitat needs of the wild trout fishery. <br />III. Permanent Flow Protection <br />An ISF water right provides permanent stream flow protection by virtue of its place in the <br />priority system. While it cannot affect operation of existing senior decreed water rights, <br />under state water law, it is entitled to stream conditions as they existed at the time of the <br />ISF appropriation. ISF water rights have standing in Water Court to ensure that proposed <br />plans for augmentation and changes to senior water rights do not alter stream conditions <br />to the detriment of decreed ISF water rights. <br />IV. Pros and Cons <br />Pro <br />• An ISF would provide permanent protection based on habitat needs. <br />IC <br />