b. Sec 216, PL 91-611, Com- 

 pleted Project Review. This section 

 authorizes review and report to con- 

 gress of the operation and mainte- 

 nance of completed projects when 

 found advisable due to significant 

 changes in physical or economic con- 

 ditions . 



c. Sec 102(b), PL 92-500. 

 This section makes it clear that 

 the Corps will determine the need 

 and value of storage for all stream- 

 flow purposes other than water qual- 

 ity control. This sounds all well 

 and good; however, the problem of 

 planning storage for fisheries needs 

 is compounded when projections of 

 the components of future flows and 

 their relation-ship to state water 

 laws are considered. 



d. Sec 22, PL 93-251, Compre- 

 hensive Planning Cooperation with the 

 states. Mechanisms exist to do 

 limited project work as re-quested by 

 specific states. 



e. Sec 65, PL 93-251, Water 

 Quality Storage. This section per- 

 mits conversion of water quality 

 storage in authorized reservoirs 

 if it is "not needed, or is needed 

 in a different amount" to other 

 authorized purposes of the project 

 when Environmental Protection Agency 

 (EPA) determines that such storage 

 is unnecessary. 



f. The continuing responsibili- 

 ty for project operation and mainte- 

 nance requires frequent reanalysis of 

 our water control management to en- 

 sure instream flow procedures are the 

 best use of the resource to accomp- 

 lish the authorized purposes. 



President Carter, in his Memo- 

 randum on Environmental Quality and 

 Water Resources Management, 12 July 



1978, directed all Federal agencies 

 to cooperate with states to improve 

 the operation and maintenance of 

 existing water resource projects to 

 address instream flow needs. The 

 President's Memorandum stated in 

 part: "In cooperation with the 

 states, federal agencies shall im- 

 prove, where possible, the opera- 

 tion and management of existing 

 water resources projects to protect 

 instream uses. While not interfer- 

 ing with state laws and responsibi- 

 lity, federal agencies shall set a 

 strong example in recognizing and 

 protecting legitimate instream flow 

 needs . " 



"In the planning stage, federal 

 agencies shall establish and provide 

 for the streamflow necessary to main- 

 tain instream needs below dams or 

 other facilities. For existing water 

 resources project legislation that 

 now lacks provisions for maintaining 

 instream flow, and where commitments 

 and economic feasibility permit, fed- 

 eral agencies working in cooperation 

 with the states shall develop legis- 

 lative amendments to correct this 

 situation. " 



Instream flow needs have per- 

 plexed water resources planners for 

 some time. There have been several 

 reasons why the instream issue has 

 been unclear. First, it is not un- 

 common for planners and developers 

 to see instream uses and out-of- 

 stream uses as being in conflict. 

 Historically, the legal and insti- 

 tutional systems favored out-of- 

 stream uses. Second, many agencies 

 have a narrow perspective of the 

 problem because their agency mis- 

 sion is oriented to one use or anoth- 

 er. As a result, even agencies ex- 

 ercising control over related in- 

 stream flow uses have tended to dif- 

 fer in the development of criteria 



105 



