OCR Text |
Show 306 iowa the statute.9 These include farm ponds for storage in which the impounded water does not exceed 18 acre-feet of permanent storage, and use of water for highway construction. As a matter of practice, conditional permits for the latter purpose are routinely issued with- out investigation of the effect on the water source, because of the seasonal nature of the work and because relatively small quantities of water are withdrawn over short periods of time. Certain broad statutory limitations on the issuance of permits should be noted. First, a permit may be issued only for a beneficial use which is defined as the application of water to a "useful purpose that inures to the benefit of the water user * * * but does not include waste or pollution of water."10 Pollution is not defined in the act, but waste is defined as excessive amounts used, excessive transit losses, and pollution of an aquifer. Perhaps the most distinctive thing about the Iowa statute is that a permit issued for a depleting use must protect the average mini- mum flow of a stream.11 The depleting use concept in the Iowa statute is vague. It is defined broadly to mean any use which "might impair rights of lower or surrounding users, or might impair the natural resources of the State or might injure the public welfare if not controlled.12 The term seems to be used in one section only, where it has no particular significance.13 In administering the act, Hines points out that the water commissioner has required permits of all regulated uses whether the source would be depleted or not.14 The concept of conditioning permits so as to protect average mini- mum flow of a stream is an important feature of the Iowa statute. Although the act contains a lengthy definition of the phrase,15 appli- cation of the concept in the administration of the act proved to be a real problem. Hines points out that, under a practice adopted by the water commissioner, only permits for consumptive uses are required to contain a condition relating to the protected flow of the stream.16 For the most part, consumptive uses have been limited to the use of water for irrigation. How the average minimum flow of a particular stream should be determined was a much more complex problem. The council first agreed upon a statewide standard for protecting the level of stream- flows. It was a flow level "equaled or exceeded by the stream in- volved 84 percent of the time between April and September in the past years determined to be most representative of normal condi- tions." This standard was then adjusted for special circumstances existing in connection with each particular stream and its tributaries. The past history of the flow of a stream was derived primarily from data in the records of the office of the U.S. Geological Survey. Fur- ther difficulties stemmed from the fact that several consumptive users might be using the water at the same source. Together they might deplete the source below the limit set for individual users, 6 Hines at 32-33. 10 Sees. 455A.1 and 455A.23. 11 Sec. 455A.22. 12 Sec. 455A.1. 13 Sec. 455A.32. « Hines at 29. 15 Sec. 455A.1. 18 Hines at 40-4S. |