annual discharge of the river at Cabinet Gorge Dam (about 

 16 million AF) . These rights and the rights at the other 

 hydropower projects could, theoretically, preclude, or at 

 least limit, the issuance of additional upstream consumptive 

 water use permits. However, in addition to the 1976 permit 

 issued to the Washington Water Power Company, DNRC has 

 issued, since 1973, 1,683 water use permits upstream of Noxon 

 Rapids Dam, for a total of 380,589 AF of water (as of 

 September 1986) . Approximately 20 percent of this total 

 volume has been appropriated for irrigation purposes. Of the 

 1,683 water use permits, 214 permits totaling 95,436 AF have 

 been issued in the upper Clark Fork Basin above Milltown Dam. 



The downstream hydropower water rights holders have not 

 objected to the issuance of water use permits by DNRC nor to 

 the use of water by the junior appropriators. Studies now 

 underway by BOR and DNRC may clarify existing circumstances 

 and stimulate new activity in those areas. DNRC may 

 intervene in the relicensing and amending of operating 

 licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

 (FERC) with the intent of subordinating the hydropower water 

 rights to upstream consumptive use (primarily irrigation) if 

 state interests are not adequately addressed. 



DNRC is investigating whether water exchanges between 

 the large hydropower projects would allow increased consump- 

 tive use while still satisfying existing hydropower rights. 

 An example of such a water exchange would be the transfer of 

 stored water from Hungry Horse Reservoir to Noxon Rapids to 

 satisfy Noxon 's hydropower rights, while at the same time •• ^t' 

 allowing continued issuance of consumptive water use permits 

 in the upper Clark Fork Basin. A recent study by the BOR 

 (1988) suggests that this may not be feasible and even if it 

 were, dewatering problems would continue in other parts of 

 the basin. In view of these circumstances, it has not been 

 practical or prudent to rely on the downstream hydropower 

 water rights to protect instream flows in the Clark Fork 

 Basin. 



Fish. Wildlife, and Aquatic Resources 



Fish, wildlife, and other living organisms depend upon 

 the flow of the Clark Fork and its tributary streams for 

 their basic habitat requirements. Due to the serious and 

 chronic nature of the pollution in the upper Clark Fork, 

 adequate streamflows must be maintained to prevent further 

 deterioration in water quality and to help protect the 

 investment being made to restore the river's water quality. 



3-17 



