WSP01923 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , . . , ~~j~?~j 1 habitat resource to the local community or is that water more valuable elsewhere? Db the improvements to water quality that will result from reduced return flows offset the likely loss of wetlands? Is preservation of artificial, irrigation-induced wetlands to be preferred over efficiency changes that result in improved streamflows and benefits to riparian habitat? Can salvage reduce the pressure to completely dry-up irrigated acreage as a source of municipal water? How can efficiency efforts by groundwater consumers and pumpers' reliance on surface irrigation losses be recognized and protected consistent with the state policy to encourage conjunctive use of tributary groundwater and surface supplies? C. Legal Questions Does strict enforcement of the "no injury" rule, as currently applied, prevent creative and more efficient use of our water supplies by focusing too narrowly on maintenance of the status quo, and do plans for augmentation provide adequate relief to rigid application of the "no injury" rule? Does or should a water right include the right to transfer changes in historical diversions to new uses while retaining the original priority date, subject only to the "no injury" rule? Would such an entitlement reward previously wasteful or inefficient practices and give credence to the disputed maxim "use it or lose it"? Would retention of the original priority date for saved water be speculative in that it allows a priority date that predates actual formation of the intent to appropriate? Do upstream junior water right holders have any reliance claims to saved water? Such claim would be based on their expectations, formed at the time of their appropriation, that inefficient, but senior downstream practices would someday be improved, thereby reducing the senior caUs on their rights. Is such an expectation reasonable and justified, and is it protected by the "no injury" rule? Even if there was no such express expectation on the junior's part at the time of appropriation, does the prior appropriation system fairly imply a gradual attrition of senior rights through abandonment which eventually le.ads to a better water supply for juniors? How should stateline delivery obligations created by compact or court decree be accounted for when evaluating a saved water proposal? Upstream juniors. potentially subject to a compact call, may assert that return flows which currently flow out of state benefit them and allow additional upstream depletions. Do we know enough about how and when a compact call will be administered in each basin to allow a senior the right to transfer return flows? Does an adequate rationale exist for creating different salvage entitlements in various regions of the state? Each basin can be considered unique in terms of hydrology. water development, local economies, and compact obligations. The prior appropriation system, however, has always included the right to take water from any basin for use anywhere else in the state. Can or should a salvaged or saved water entitlement be limited to certain activities, such as "that resulting from federal programs"? 24 , ;~'.}- ,ii!