WSP01433 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1" CHAPTER 5 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS STUDY TO OTHERS Each of the policy issue studies being con- ducted demonstrates the interrelationship between water policy issues. Water poliCy is complex, and no method of distinguishing issues can successfully eliminate overlaps. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the most significant relationships between this study and the other policy issues studies being conducted as part of the State Water Planning and Review Process. As this report is being prepared, the original policy issue studies are nearing completion. While reports have not yet been prepared on several of the studies, work is well underway on all of those original studies still scheduled. The scope of all of these studies is therefore Quite well defined. As a result, it is now much easier to identify the relationships between each of the studies than it was when the process began. Identifying those relationships is important in each case. Such identification promotes aware- ness of the fact that any particular water policy action will have greater impact upon overall water policy than just the resolution of the im- mediate issue at hand. The result of this aware- ness should not be to delay automatically what may otherwise appear to be a favorable action, although that may be appropriate in some cases. However, such awareness should at a minimum discourage actions that will prevent consider- ation of new information at a later date. Significant relationships can be identified between the Subject of this report, riparian rights, and several of the other poliCy issue studies being conducted. The extent of thai relationship, if any, is addressed in the material which follows. STUDY #1 INSTREAM FLOWS Since the exercise of riparian rights is one potential way to achieve recognition of uses which are dependent upon the maintenance of instream flows. there can be considerable re- lationship between this study and the study on Instream Flows. Alternatives 2c and 3c in this report would specifically grant recognition of instream uses by riparian landowners. If inte- grated inlo the appropriative system, valid claims for such uses would be converted to appropri- ative rights. On the other hand, other alternatives, such as 2d, 2g, 3c, and 3g, would deny recogni- tion of instream riparian uses. They would there- fore prevent use of the riparian rights system to achieve inslream flow objectives. One particular instream use, stockwatering, is the subject 01 alternatives 2h, 2i, 3j, 3k, 4a, and 4b. By exempting this use from registration or adjudication, alternatives 2h and 3i would leave resolution of conflicts involving stockwatering to the courts. Alternatives 2i and 3k would allow the landowner to make a one-time decision whether he or she wanted to rely on an administrative or jUdicial procedure for prolection of his or her right to water livestock. Finally, Alternative #4, especially subalternative 4b, would resolve the stockwatering/instream flow issue to the benefit of the stockwater user. It is important to note that the protection granted such uses by Alternative #4 would extend to all users, not just those with riparian rights. STUDY #2 WATER QUALITY This study and the Study on Water Ouality appear to have little relationship 10 each other. Unless waste assimilation was recognized as a use entitled to a riparian claim under alternative 2c or 3c the only relationships between the two studies would depend upon the extent to which implementation of any of the riparian rights al- ternatives increased or decreased flow in a given stream. Those alternatives that favor greater recognition of riparian rights for consumptive uses would tend to decrease flow, which in turn would tend to degrade water Quality. 5.1