Criteria for Evaluating State Instream-Flow Programs: Deciding What Works
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 121, Issue 3
Abstract
Most states have adopted some form of instream-flow–protection program. These programs are of three types: instream-flow water rights; reservations of water for instream purposes; and conditions on consumptive water rights. No matter which type of protection program is adapted, the same question remains: How can we tell if it works? Several authors have attempted to answer this question. The works of these analysts are reviewed and criteria are suggested to evaluate the success of an instream-flow–protection program. The criteria are public confidence, certainty, proper administration, expense, and outcome in-stream.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R. L.(1982). “Conflict between establishment of instream flows and other water uses on western streams.”Water Resour. Bull., 18(1), 61–65.
2.
Bagley, J. M., Larson, D. T., and Kopaloski, L.(1985). “Satisfying instream flow needs under western water rights.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgt., ASCE, 111(2), 171–191.
3.
Beecher, H.(1990). “Standards for instream flows.”Rivers, 1(2), 97–109.
4.
Beeman, J. P., and Arment, K. R. (1989). “Instream flows in Idaho.”Instream flow protection in the West, L. J. MacDonnell, T. A. Rice, and S. J. Shupe, eds., Natural Resour. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., 267–278.
5.
Borden, J. (1989). “Oregon's minimum perennial streamflows.”Instream flow protection in the West, L. J. MacDonnell, T. A. Rice, and S. J. Shupe, eds., Natural Resour. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., 357–364.
6.
Burkardt, N. (1992). “An implementation case study: Wyoming's instream flow law,” Ms thesis, Dept. of Political Sci., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colo.
7.
Cavendish, M. G., and Duncan, M. I. (1986). “Use of the instream flow incremental methodology: A tool for negotiation.”Envir. Impact Assessment Rev., Vol. 6, 347–363.
8.
Cox, W. G.(1991). “Protecting instream water uses in a riparian doctrine state: What are the options?”Rivers, 2(2), 113–124.
9.
Davis, P. N. (1982). “The riparian right of streamflow protection in the eastern states.”Arkansas Law Rev., Vol. 36, 47–80.
10.
Dixon, D. W., and Cox, W. E.(1985). “Minimum flow protection in riparian states.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 111(2), 149–156.
11.
Doerksen, H. R., and Lamb, B. L. (1974). “Instream flow: An emerging arena of conflict.”Proc., Annu. Convention of Am. Water Resour. Assoc., Bethesda, Md.
12.
Estes, C. C., and McKinney, M. J. (1992). “Instream flow protection in the western states: Current status and future challenges.”Proc., Annu. Meeting of Western Div. of Am. Fisheries Soc., Bethesda, Md.
13.
Gould, G. A. (1977). “Preserving instream flow under the appropriation doctrine: Problems and possibilities.” B. L. Lamb, ed., Protecting instream flow under western water law : Selected papers ; Instream Flow Information Paper No. 2. FWS /OBS- 77 /47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 3–21.
14.
Hayes, T., and Watson, J. M. (1984). “Stream flow maintenance in Virginia.”Univ. of Richmond Law Rev., Vol. 18, 485–556.
15.
Hundley, N. Jr. (1993). The great thirst : California water development 1770's through 1990's. University of California Press, Los Angeles, Calif.
16.
Lamb, B. L. (1984). “Predicting the results of instream flow policies.”Water for the twenty- first century : Will it be there ? M. A. Collins, ed., Ctr. for Urban Water Studies, Southern Methodist Univ., Dallas, Tex., 840–847.
17.
Lamb, B. L. (1989). “Quantifying instream flows: Matching policy and technology.”Instream flow protection in the West, L. J. MacDonnell, T. A. Rice, and S. J. Shupe, eds., Natural Resour. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., 23–40.
18.
Lamb, B. L., and Doerksen, H. R. (1990). “Instream flow water use in the United States—Water laws and methods for determining flow requirements.” J. E. Carr, E. B. Chase, R. W. Paulson, and D. W. Moody, eds., National Water Summary 1987 —Hydrologic Events and Water Supply; Water Supply Paper 2350, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 109–116.
19.
Lamb, B. L., and Meshorer, H. (1983). “Comparing instream flow programs: A report on current status.”Proc., Spec. Conf. on Irrig. and Drain., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 435–444.
20.
McKinney, M. J. (1989). “Letting the rivers run: Toward a model instream flow program.” W. W. Woessner and D. Potts, eds., Proc., Symp. on Headwaters Hydro., Am. Water Resour. Assoc., Bethesda, Md., 317–329.
21.
McKinney, M. J., and Taylor, J. G. (1988). “Western state instream flow programs: A comparative assessment.”Instream Flow Info. Paper No. 18: Biological Rep., 89 ( 2 ), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
22.
Olive, S. W. (1984). “Protecting instream flows in California: An administrative case study.”Instream Flow Info. Paper No. 16, FWS /OBS- 82 /36, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
23.
Potter, L.(1988). “The public's role in the acquisition and enforcement of instream flows.”Land and Water Law Rev., 24(2), 419–441.
24.
Shupe, S. J. (1989). “Keeping the waters flowing: Streamflow protection programs, strategies, and issues in the West.”Instream flow protection in the West, L. J. MacDonnell, T. A. Rice, and S. J. Shupe, eds., Natural Resour. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., 1–22.
25.
Stalnaker, C. B. (1990). “Minimum flow is a myth.”Ecology and assessment of warmwater streams; workshop synopsis ; Biological Rep. 90 ( 5 ), M. B. Bain, ed., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 31–33.
26.
Reiser, D. W., Wesche, T. A., and Estes, C.(1989). “Status of instream flow litigation and practices in North America.”Fisheries, 14(2), 22–29.
27.
Tarlock, A. D. (1993). “Future issues in instream flow protection in the West.”Instream flow protection in the West, 2nd Ed., L. J. MacDonnell, T. Rice, and S. J. Shupe, eds., Natural Resour. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., 8-1–8-24.
28.
Trimbly, T. (1987). “Opportunities to protect instream flows in Wyoming and Colorado.”Biological Rep. 87(10), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
29.
Tyus, H. M.(1992). “An instream flow philosophy for recovering endangered Colorado River fishes.”Rivers, 3(1), 27–36.
30.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1985). “Opportunities to protect instream flows in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.” Brandes, K., ed., Biological Rep. 85 ( 9 ), Washington, D.C.
31.
Water Resources Division. (1988). “Review of public comments on draft sections of the state water plan.” Rep. to State Water Plan Advisory Council, Montana Dept. of Natural Resour. and Conservation, Helena, Mont.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 121 • Issue 3 • May 1995
Pages: 270 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: May 1, 1995
Published in print: May 1995
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.