Draft Upper Clark Fork River Basin water management plan

60 Pages·1994·2.2 MB·English

by  Upper Clark Fork River Basin Steering Committee

Upper Clark Fork
333*81 River Basin
M26dwnp Steerinc Comnittee
1994 Draft Upper
Clark Fork Hiver
Basin water
raanaeeraent plan
DRAFT
UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared by
UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN
STEERING COMMITTEE
STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION
September 1994
MAY 3 1 1895
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA59620
Sob?'
~
MONTANASTATELIBRARY
;- ; « ,',',A,,i. °S'3"3'3'."9*1•M'2'6^d'"w*'m^p"1^99"4"C."1^"""*•'•'
FEB 2 1 ^>^'''
JUL 28 1998 3 0864 00091499 7
FEB 12 2002
MAY 2 .3 7003
11
DRAFT
UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY 5
I.
A. BASIN CLOSURE 5
B. ONGOING WATERAND PLANNINGAND MANAGEMENT
MECHANISM 5
C. PROTECTION OF EXISTING WATERRIGHTS 6
D. WATERADJUDICATION SYSTEM 6
E. WATERSTORAGE 6
1. Structural Storage 6
2. Non-Structural Storage 6
F. WATERQUALITY 7
1. Toxic Metals and StreamDewaterlng 7
2. Nutrient Pollution 7
3. Non-Point Pollution Strategy 7
G. FISHERY 7
H. IN-STREAM FLOWPILOTSTUDY 7
WATERRESERVATIONS 8
I.
INTRODUCTION 9
II.
A. GOALS OFTHE UPPERCLARKFORK RIVERBASINWATERMANAGEMENTPLAN 9
B. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE 9
C. UPPERCLARKFORK RTVERBASIN STEERING COMMITTEE 10
D. DEVELOPMENTOFTHE MANAGEMENTPLAN 11
E. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAND INVOLVEMENT 1
1. Steering Committee Meetings 1
2. WorkPlan 12
3. Watershed Committees 12
4. BasinWaterRights Closure Meeting 12
5. UpperClarkForkWater News 12
III. EXISTING SITUATION 13
A. MONTANAWATERLAW 13
1. WaterRight Basics 13
2. Water Reservations 13
3. Basin Closure 14
4. Changes to ExistingWater Rights 14
5 In-stream Flows 15
.
6. Adjudication 15
7. Enforcement ofWaterRights 17
B. WATERQUALITY STANDARDS 18
1. Definition and Purpose 18
2. Clark ForkBasinWater Quality Standards Designations 18
C. BASIN HYDROLOGY 20
1. Groundwater 21
2. Surface Water 23
D. WATERQUALITY 24
E. EXISTING WATERUSES 26
1. Aesthetics 26
2. Agriculture 26
3. Domestic 27
4. Fisheries 27
5. Industrial and Mining 28
6. Municipal 29
7. PowerGeneration 29
8. Recreation 30
^ 9. Storage 30
10. Superfund 31
11. Transportation 32
F. EXISTING WATERMANAGEMENT 33
1. Overview 33
2. UpperClark ForkBasinWaterManagement Activities 33
IV. CONSIDERINGAND BALANCINGALLBENEFICIAL USES 37
V. CLOSURE OFTHE BASINTO NEWWATERRIGHTSPERMITS 38
A. RECOMMENDATION 38
B. DISCUSSION 38
1. Advantages 38
2. Disadvantages 38
3. ProposalRationale 38
C. HIGHLIGHTED ISSUES 39
1. Ground WaterInclusion 39
2. Superfund Exemption 39
VI. WATERISSUESAND RECOMMENDATIONS 41
A. CONTINUING UPPERCLAFiKFORKWATERPLANNING
AND MANAGEMENTMECHANISM 41
B. PROTECTEXISTING WATERRIGHTS 42
C. WATERADJUDICATION SYSTEM 42
D. IMPLEMENTING WATERADJUDICATION DECREES 42
E. WATERSTORAGE. 43
F. WATERQUALITY 45
G. FISHERY 46
H. IN-STREAM FLOW PILOTSTUDY 47
L WATERRESERVATIONS 49
Table 1. UpperClarkForkRiverBasin Steering Committee 10
Table 2. Wateruse classifications and corresponding definitions forsurface waters
ofthe upperClarkForkBasin. Source: Montana SurfaceWaterQualityStandards,
Administrative Rules of Montana, Title 16, Chapter20 19
Table 3. Total streammiles * and lake acres ** inthe upperClark ForkBasin
classified according to thevarious uses prescribed in the Montana Surface
WaterQuality Standards 20
Table 4. UpperClarkForkRiverBasinWaterUses 37
Table 5. PriorityPotential Storage Expansion Sites 44
Table 6. NumberofMiles ofChronically DewaterStreams in the
UpperClarkForkRiverBasin 47
Figure 1. Brown trout abundance 28
APPENDICES
A. Senate Bill 434 51
B. List ofUpperClarkForkRiverBasin Steering Committee Public Meetings 52
C. Return Flowfrom Irrigation StabilizesWaterSources 54
D. Chronic and Periodic Dewatered Streams in the UpperClarkForkRiverBasin
Above Milltown Dam 56

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
I.
The following are summaries ofrecommendations found in SectionsV andVI below. The page number of
the full recommendation are noted in each instance.
A. BASIN CLOSURE (Page 38)
The legislature should close the UpperClarkForkRiverBasintothe Issuance ofmost newsurface
andground wateruse permits. The areaclosed should Include the entire ClarkFork and Blackfoot River
drainagesaboveMllltownDam. TheclosureisnotIntendedtoaffectwaterusesthat donotrequireawater
permit. It shouldbe conditioned so that it would not preempt new permits forthe development of:
1) Storage forbeneficial uses;
2) Stockwater;
3) Uses determined to be non-consumptive; and
4) Superfundremedies,exceptfordilution,requiredbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
for Superfund sites designated as ofJanuary 1, 1994.
The exemption for Superfund remedies should expire after five years onJanuary 1, 2000. so that
applications for new water rights permits for this purpose would have to have been filed on or before
December31, 1999.
A "non-consumptive use" means a beneficial use ofwater that does not cause a reduction In the
source of supply because substantially all of the water returns without delay to the source of supply,
causing little orno disruption In streamconditions.
Concerning ground wateruse, existinglawdoesnot require a permit fora well producingwaterat
lessthan35gallonsperminute not to exceed a totalvolumeof 10acre-feet peryear. Thisproposalwould
not change this situation so that wells under this production limit could continue to be drilled for any
purpose.
It shouldalsobe noted that includinggroundwaterIntheclosure asproposedwouldnot allowcity
and townsto obtain a permitfornewwellsfordrinkingwaterorothermunicipal uses. Municipalitieswill
still be able to purchase orcondemn existingwater rightsto expand domestic watersupplies.
The closure and the exemptions will be reviewed by the ongoing basln-wlde committee after five
years,andnecessarychangeswillberecommendedtothelegislature. Theclosurecanbemodified,extended,
orended by action ofthe legislature afterthe review.
B. ONGOING WATER AND PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT MECHANISM
(Page 4i)
The legislature should provide for an ongoing basin water planning and management mechanism
Including a basin-wide committee and watershed committees. The mechanism should not bevested with
legal authority to compel any action by any water user or water Interest. Its purposes should. Instead.
Include:
1) Providing a forumfor all interests to communicate about water issues;
2) Providing education about waterlaw and watermanagement issues;
3) Identifyingshort-termandlong-termwatermanagement Issuesand problemsand alternatives
forresolving them;
4) Facilitating resolution ofwater related disputes via consensus-based collaborative processes
includingmediation;
5
5) Providing coordination with other basin management and planning efforts, such as county
drought committees and theTrl-State Section 525WaterQualityImplementationCouncil;
6) Advisingthegovernment agencies aboutwatermanagement and permitting activities;
7) Consultingwith the basin'slocalgovernments; and
8) Reportingperiodicallytosomeentitywithwatermanagementauthoritysuchasthelegislature.
Forthefirsttwoyearsthemembersofthebasln-wldecommitteewillbeappointedbytheDirectorof
theDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandConservation. MemberswillIncluderepresentativesofthefollowing
localbasinwaterInterests: agricultureorganizations;conservationdistricts; environmentalorganizations;
industries; local, state, and federal governments; reservation applicants; utilities; and water user
organizations. The ongoingbasin-wide committeewill recommend modificationsofthe selection process
tothe 1997Legislature IfanothermethodIsIdentifiedthatbetterensureslocalInputtomemberselection
whilemaintainingthebroadrangeofmemberrepresentationofbasinwaterusers. Thebasln-wldecommittee
willcontinue to decidethe membership ofwatershed committees.
C. PROTECTION OF EXISTING WATER RIGHTS (Page 42)
AnyactiontakenbythelegislatureoranyexecutivebranchagencyInresponsetothisplanmustbe
predicated onpreserving existingwaterrights.
D. WATER ADJUDICATION SYSTEM (Page 42)
The Montana ReservedWaterRights Compact Commission should make the U.S. Forest Service a
highpriorityamongthe federal agencies Inactivelynegotiating a reservedwaterrightscompact. Further.
Ifthe commission takes ageographical approach to the Forest Service's reserved waterrightsclaims, the
RockCreekdrainageshouldbestudiedasatestcaseofabasinwhereForestServiceclaimsaredownstream
ofstate-based privatewaterrightsclaims.
WATER STORAGE
E. (Page 43)
1. Structural Storage
The ongoingbasinwaterplanningandmanagementmechanismwillcontinue the Investigationsof
the prioritynew and expanded existingwaterstorage sites Identified In the UpperClarkForkRiverBasin
SteeringCommittee studyofpossible Increases ofwaterstorage inthe basin. Inparticular. ItwillIdentify
thepotentialbeneficiariesofand a fundingmechanismfortheseprioritysites.
TheSteeringCommitteewasunabletoconsiderandmakerecommendationsconcerningtheexisting
Georgetown-Storm-SllverLakesystembecauseownershipofthefacilitiesandwaterrightsassociatedwith
itwere cloudedbylitigation. WhenthislitigationIsresolved, this systemshouldbe studiedto determine
ifItcontains unused storagecapacitythatmightbenefitbasinwaterusers.
The ongoingbasinwaterplanning andmanagementmechanismshould also create somemeansto
examine additional storage optionsinthebasinastheyarise.
2. Non-Structural Storage
The ongoing basinwaterplanning and management mechanismwill continue to support the Flint
Creek return flow study so that water users In the watershed can better understand and manage return
flows tobenefit In-stream and diversionarywateruses. The ongoingmechanism should promote similar
studiesofthe role ofreturnflows inwatershedsthroughout thebasin.
WATER QUALITY
F. (Page 45)
1. Toxic Metals and Stream Dewatering
ProposednewstorageorothermanagementactivitiesthatcouldchangetheflowregimeIntheClark
Fork River must Incorporate careful consideration of Impacts on water quality and, particularly, toxic
metal concentrations.
2. Nutrient Pollution
The ongoingbasinplanning andmanagementmechanismwill:
a. Encourage and assist otherbasin communitiesthat have not alreadydone sotobanthe sale of
phosphate detergents;
b. Continue to encourage and assist the City of Deer Lodge, the National Park Service, and the
DepartmentofHealthandEnvironmentalSciences(DHES) Inimplementingthislandapplication
project, andencourageotherbasincommunitiessuchasButte,Galen,WarmSprings.Drummond.
and Missoulato evaluate alternatives to direct discharge oftheirmunicipalwaste water, and
c. Encourage Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to resolve water rights
questions surrounding land application.
3. Non-Point Pollution Strategy
The ongoing basin planning and management mechanism will continue to encourage upper Clark
Forkbasinwatershedcommitteestoparticipate inthedevelopmentofvoluntary, localnon-point pollution
control strategies and will provide assistancewhen requested and able to do so.
FISHERY
G. (Page 46)
Theongoingbasinplanningandmanagementmechanismwillcontinuetoprovideacommunications
linkthroughwhichtheDepartmentofFish,Wildlife, andParks(DFWP)andwillinglandownerscandiscuss
the opportunities for leasingwater, forcooperative storage projects, for implementing the trial In-stream
flowprogramoutlined Inthisplan, orforotherwise arrangingto relieve dewatered streamsections. DFWP
should continue to seekwilling landowners to help solve dewatering problems to improve stream habitat
improvement on private land. Itwill alsocontinue to utilize RiverRestoration Program funds (earmarked
fishing license revenue) and fish kill mitigation money (ARCO settlement in 1989 fish kill) to fund habitat
Improvement projects on private land.
H. m-STREAM FLOW PILOT STUDY (Page 47)
Thelegislatureshouldauthorizeatenyearin-streamflowpilotstudyintheUpperClarkFork River
Basin. The studywill test allowing a public orprivate entityto purchase, lease, orreceive bydonation an
existingwater right from a willing seller, convert it to an In-stream right through the waterrightschange
process, and then protect It against appropriation byJunior users. To obtain and protect an in-stream
right in a specific stream reach, an entity would be required to proceed through the water rights change
process and demonstrate that no otherwaterright holderwould be adversely affected bythechange. The
pilot studywill have a termination date.
The legislature should change state law so that the cost of objecting by prevailing parties in all
waterrightschange processeswill be paid by the non-prevalllng party.
WATER RESERVATIONS
I. (Page 49)
The legislature should continue the current suspension of Granite Conservation District's (GCD)
and the Department ofFish. Wildlife and Park's (DFWP) reservation applications during the period ofthe
proposedbasinclosure. TheMay 1, 1991 prioritydatefortheseapplicationspreviouslyestablishedbythe
legislature should remain Intact during this period. Ifa future basin closure review recommends either
that the closure be terminated or that the exemptions be significantlymodified, GCD and DFWP should
retainthe right to renewtheirreservation applicationsatthe end oftheclosure periodwithout lossofthe
May 1. 1991prioritydate.TheirrenewalscouldIncludemodificationtotheiroriginalapplicationsIfwarranted
bychangedcircumstanceswithoutlossoftheMay 1, 1991 prioritydatesolongasthewaterquantitytobe
reserveddoesnotexceedthe amount intheoriginalreservationapplicationsandthe locationofthewater
tobe reserved Isnotchangedfromthe original application.