Published in Environmental Flows for River Systems / Fourth International Ecohydraulics Symposium

Conference Proceedings. Cape Town, South Africa: Southern Waters. 2002. Note - full paper omitted from
proceedings by error. The paper is being updated at this time and will be submitted to a peer reviewed
journal.

INSTREAM FLOW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WITHIN

INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT IN CHILE

Matthew D. Davisa and Francisco Riestra M.b

a
University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616 USA; mddavis_67@yahoo.com
b
General Water Directorate, Morandé 59 - 8 Piso, Santiago, Chile; francisco.riestra@moptt.cl

ABSTRACT

Development of instream flow policies and procedures are discussed in context of integrated
water resource management in Chile, a middle-income country. Management of water
allocation and distribution is characterized by broad private-sector involvement based on
historical participation in agricultural communities and reinforced in the Water Code of 1981,
which encourages market transactions to redistribute water. The General Water Directorate
(DGA) is obliged to deliver permanent water rights to petitioners up to 85% exceedance of
water availability and contingent rights in excess of 85%. Water rights in the nine northernmost
administrative regions are fully or overallocated. Presently, instream flows are not afforded
specific, legal status or protection in the Water Code. In the 1990s, environmental management
was incorporated more fully in decision-making. At the same time, investment in hydraulic
structures increased greatly. In 1994 authorities adopted an internal policy that incorporates
minimum instream flows as part of third party rights that must be respected when issuing water
rights. Proposed changes to the Water Code include legal provision of instream flow allocation
where available. Instream flow assessments at the DGA are based upon hydrologic records,
usually 10% of mean annual flow. Approval of environmental impact assessments (EIA) since
1997 also requires instream flow allocations. A variety of different methods have been applied
with varying ecological impacts. The Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM)
component of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) was applied in four
instances: one pilot study and three EIAs. Application was difficult due to lack of
environmental data, much of which were developed during the studies. Measures taken over the
last decade have contributed to inclusion of some instream flows in river systems. However,
exercise of paper water rights, newly constructed hydraulic structures, and increased water
market transactions not subject to environmental review may further impair river ecology.

KEY WORDS: Chile; environmental impact assessment; instream flows, water rights

INTRODUCTION

There is growing recognition that fresh water is a finite resource that provides social, economic,
and environmental services (CEPAL 1998; WWC 2000). Water is an essential element to
sustain people through water supply, sanitation, and food security. It is also an economic input
for production of goods; there is growing consensus to incorporate the economic value of the
resource in management. At the same time, rivers and freshwater ecosystems provide
environmental services that benefit society (Postel and Carpenter, 1997), while others value
nature for its intrinsic and spiritual value (Callicott, 1994; Sessions, 1995; Zimmerman et al.,
1998). A balance is required among competing extractive and instream uses of water. One
manner to conserve river ecosystems for public good and intrinsic values is the reservation of
instream flows.

1
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

During the military ruled government in Chile (1973-90), a neoliberal socioeconomic model
was instituted based on free market principles and export-oriented growth. The government
assumed a secondary role in many aspects of the economy. Water and environmental goods
were treated largely as economic commodities. Recognized market failures, such as
externalities and public goods, were not addressed directly. With transition to democracy, more
emphasis has been directed toward social and environmental issues (Ffrench-Davis, 1999;
Hudson, 1994; Oppenheim, 1999; Pizarro et al., 1999).

The result of development and policy is that over the past 20 years there have been increased
water extractions. Since transition from military rule in 1990 there has been increased
government investment in hydraulic infrastructure and private sector investment in hydropower
projects. These actions have led to altered and diminished instream flows. At the same time,
there has been a growing environmental awareness; since the 1990s mechanisms have evolved
to incorporate environmental assessment and conservation in decision-making.

In this paper, development of instream flow policies and procedures is discussed within
integrated water resources management in Chile, a middle-income country. A broad overview
of water availability, infrastructure, and ecology of rivers sets the scene for discussion of legal
control and water management in practice. Historical development of instream flow policies
and review of environmental impact assessments and instream flow determination are then
presented before a general discussion and conclusion.

WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Watersheds and River Flow Regimes

Chile stretches 4,270 kilometers (km), from 17° 12’ to 56° 32’ southern latitude, while
averaging only 177 km from east to west (Figure 1). Typically, watersheds are relatively small,
with short, steep rivers that run from east to west. Water resource availability varies
substantially by longitudinal location, with arid and semiarid conditions in the north and center
of the country, the principal areas of population and economic activity (Figure 1). Rivers in the
nine northernmost administrative regions (including the Metropolitan Region) are fully or
overallocated. Sectorial demand differs substantially between regions (Figure 1).

Water Infrastructure

Historically, inhabitants of Chile have utilized snow runoff from the Andes mountains. Water
infrastructure was largely built from the late 1800s through the early 1970s (Lobos, 1978).
Little investment in water infrastructure took place during the military regime (Pizarro et al.,
1999). While numerous irrigation studies were completed during this period, government
policy left the private sector to finance projects. This financing did not materialize. Improved
efficiency of water use, particularly in areas of export crops, and increased extractions from
existing infrastructure offset the lack of investment in hydraulic infrastructure during this
period.

Since the 1990s renewed investment in hydraulic infrastructure has taken place. A series of
dams have been constructed on unregulated rivers to provide increased social assistance and
irrigation security. Additionally, renewed investment in private hydropower has occurred since
the 1990s, predominantly in the south to meet growing energy demand in the country (Figure 1).

2
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Ecology of Rivers

Fresh water fauna in Chile is limited in diversity and highly endemic (Arratia 1981; Ruiz et al.,
1993; Campos et al., 1993). Three principal factors contribute to this fact. First, physical
barriers have isolated Chile a great deal from outside biological interaction: desert in the north,
Antarctica in the south, Andes mountains in the east, and Pacific Ocean in the west. Second, the
physical characteristics of rivers provide less ecological niches. Third, extinctions of pre-
Andean fauna occurred due to tectonic activity and changes in ocean levels (Ruiz and Berra,
1994).

There are 46 endemic freshwater fish and 15 introduced species in Chile (Campos et al., 1993).
Most native species are in various states of endangerment (Table I). Endangerment occurs in all
but one region (II) (Campos et al., 1998). Region II is extremely arid and its single river (the
Loa) has long been intervened. Baseline environmental information in most rivers is limited.
The assessment, therefore, represents the best estimation of the state of ichtyofauna, reflecting a
combination of previous studies and opinion of an expert panel held in 1997 (Campos et al.,
1998). In addition to high endemicity, there are species of importance due to their primitivity.
Furthermore, the first estimate of the state of crustaceans was undertaken in 1997 (Table I)
(Bahamonde et al., 1998).

WATER RIGHTS AND ALLOCATION

Water rights and allocation are predominantly governed by the Water Code of 1981 (Chile,
1988). It reflects an amalgamation of neoliberal economic policy that the military government
established, historical water codes that grew out of legal management of agriculture water use,
and legalities of other uses, such as nonconsumptive water rights (Bauer, 1998; Chile, 1988;
Vergara, 1998). Additional legal codes that influence water allocation and management are the
Sanitary Code, Mining Code, Fishery Code, Indigenous Law, Civil Code, and the Constitution
(Fuentes, 1999; Williams and Dougnac, 1999). In most cases the other codes tend to have minor
influence in comparison to the Water Code.

Water Rights

Water is considered a public good. A water right is defined as the ownership of the right to use
and enjoy water. Water rights are separate from land and can be freely transferred, sold, and
bought. These rights are bestowed private property status, as defined in the property laws of the
Civil Code and Chilean Constitution.

A water right is defined as either consumptive or nonconsumptive. A consumptive water right

permits the user to completely consume the water; a nonconsumptive water right permits use
and subsequent restoration of water at a specified quality, manner, and location, as agreed in the
title negotiated with the General Water Directorate (DGA). Water rights can only be held for
extractive uses; they do not require specification of type of water use. A nonconsumptive water
right is a reformulated concept. Its designation was established principally to develop
hydroelectric plants in the upper reaches of river systems.

Water rights can be obtained in four manners: (1) application of a new right at the DGA subject
to no harm to third party rights, (2) bidding at a water auction when there is more than one
petition for the same new right at the DGA, (3) registration with the DGA based on prescription
(traditional use - prior to 1979), and (4) purchase on the water market. Rights are granted in
perpetuity at no cost, do not involve justification, and do not require use.

3
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

If there are available consumptive water rights and the new application is not detrimental to
other rights holders, the DGA is obligated to grant the water right. The DGA issues permanent
consumptive water rights up to 85% exceedance, based on statistical monthly fit of the last 30
years of records. In excess of 85%, petitioners are granted contingent water rights. Water rights
are volumetric (e.g. liters per second). The basis for water allocation is the legal Section.
Chilean rivers are divided into one to five legal Sections. These Sections are delineated
according to physical locations, such as at a major diversion canal or bridge crossing, or where
the river has historically become dry.

Auctions are very rare. Many water rights petitions submitted now are to regularize prescriptive
rights. Water market purchases are not subject to regulatory oversight. Construction of new
water infrastructure above a certain size threshold, such as diversion structures, requires DGA
approval; some private water user groups (WUAs) monitor transactions and grant approval.

In times of insufficient water to meet allocated rights, contingent rights forfeit access to water
first. Shortages are shared among permanent title holders. In cases of drought and
disagreement among title-holders, the DGA can legally intervene. Interventions resulting in
reduction of rights below legally shared shortage allocation must be compensated monetarily by
the government.

Water User Associations

The Water Code lays out legalities of WUOs. Three types of WUOs are recognized legally: (1)
canal associations, (2) water user associations (several canals), and (3) watch committees (JVs).
Broad involvement in water distribution is carried out by the WUOs. The JVs correspond to
legally recognized watershed, river, or more typically river Sections. All water rights holders in
a river Section belong to a JV, with voting power in accordance with the proportion of water
rights. The JV polices and resolves conflicts within its jurisdiction.

Groundwater

A terse treatment of groundwater is addressed in the Water Code. It is supplemented by a 1996

regulation (Chile, 1996). The two legal documents empower the DGA to regulate exploration
concessions, exclusive rights, final rights, and exclusionary spatial areas of groundwater use.

WATER MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE

Regulatory oversight is carried out by a myriad of government agencies. The DGA plays a
central role in administering water rights, performing studies, and measuring the resource. The
Department of Hydraulic Works (DOH), plans and constructs irrigation and water excess
projects. Local WUOs typically carry out agricultural water distribution and maintain and build
local infrastructure. Reallocation of water rights is left to market forces. Market transactions
occur less than originally anticipated (Davis and Lund, 2000). Recent review of the Maipo and
Limarí watersheds indicate more frequent trades have occurred in the last five years (Donoso et
al., 2000).

Historically, government has played a small role in active water management. The government
role has increased during the 1990s to address water quality (National Environmental
Commission (CONAMA) and Superintendency of Sanitary Services (SISS)), environmental
(CONAMA), and social investment issues (DOH).

4
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Identified Problems with the Water Code and Present Management Initiatives

Several studies have identified problems with the Water Code, water market allocation system,
and present water management (Bauer, 1998; Davis and Lund, 2000; Dourajeanni and Berros,
1996; Rios and Quiroz, 1995): Obstacles to water transactions include: (1) relative water
scarcity, (2) physical limitations, (3) incomplete economic framework, (4) administrative
difficulties, and (5) social attitudes. In large part, the present system has not fully accounted for
adverse impacts upon the environment and social groups.

Modifications to the Water Code have been introduced in a several years since 1990 addressing:
(1) proposition of watershed management agencies, (2) requirement to initiate use of new water
titles within a specific time period, (3) requirement of new water titles to possess beneficial use,
(4) full legal entitlement of all WUOs, (5) requirement of local real estate registries to report
water transaction to the DGA, (6) establishment of patent taxes for nonuse of water titles, and
(7) recognition of ecological flows (Chile, 2000). They have stagnated in congress because of
ideological belief in market mechanisms and protection of existing water rights.

A water policy was developed by the DGA (DGA, 1999). Five principles were recognized:

• Water is legally defined as a public good for private use;

• Sustainable use of water;
• Water is an economic good and should be used efficiently;
• User participation;
• Proposals based on technical and scientific knowledge.

Seven objectives were identified:

• Basic water supply for the population;

• Improve water use efficiency;
• Endeavor to use the resource where most economically, environmentally and socially
beneficial;
• Maximize water use to support growth in the country;
• Limit the impact of hydrologic variability in the country;
• Recuperate environmental goods and develop water resources without compromising the
environment;
• Minimize the level of water conflict.

Seven lines of actions were identified (Table II).

Water Accounting and Availability

The DGA has had difficulty to determine water availability due to lack of information regarding
water rights. De facto (prescriptive) water rights are recognized in the Water Code. Many of
these are not registered with the DGA. Others are documented in terms that are not readily
converted to specific volumes. Thus the DGA has made assumptions about rights and usage
when approving water right petitions. Rights with volumes registered with the DGA are
estimated to be less than 10% (Vergara, 1998).

Moreover, the Section, rather than the watershed, continues to be the legal basis to determine
water rights. Because of inefficiencies in agriculture (DGA, 1996a), return flows contribute
significantly to downstream flows. Moreover, the interaction of groundwater and surface water
is not fully understood in many watersheds. These factors, coupled with historical water use

5
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

and unused and / or unregistered rights, contribute to the difficulty of water accounting and
water rights allocation.

In practice, water users have adopted a share system. Each right is allocated a certain amount of
shares in a legal Section. In areas with JVs, a Water Master determines how much water a share
represents in a given month. In many rivers, large volume storage was not available historically
so that a share could vary considerably.

Management of groundwater has been limited historically. Groundwater is exploited in the dry
and arid areas, predominantly in Regions I to VI. Exploitation has increased rapidly since the
1990s, especially as drought conditions prevailed. Registration of groundwater rights is required
with the DGA. However, in some areas up to half of pumps are operated without formal, fully
documented rights. The DGA similarly has difficulty in assessing groundwater rights and
availability in many locations due to limited knowledge of recharge and aquifer characteristics.
In some instances the DGA has granted groundwater rights in areas of continually falling
groundwater levels.

Historical water accounting and present initiatives involving additional storage and use of water
place pressure on the resource, resulting in modified flow regimes and less water available for
instream flows. Several rivers have been overallocated.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND WATER ALLOCATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Improved environmental management in Chile is a result of export market considerations, health

impacts, economic losses, degradation of the environment, citizen participation and
empowerment, influence of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and water
user conflicts. A chronology of important developments in water, environmental, and instream
flow management are listed in Table III.

Water allocation for the environment in Chile has involved: (1) education, (2) knowledge, (3)
legal determination, and (4) application of instream flow methodologies.

Education

Education includes the general public and industry. Progressively there is growing awareness of
environmental and water issues in the country. Much of the initial focus originated from
CONAMA and environmental management, particularly addressing contaminated water and
secondly environmental impact assessments of projects. The Pangue dam case raised awareness
about instream flows. The DGA and DOH progressed initiatives to increase awareness of water
(quantity) management. The DOH established an environmental management unit in 1998.
Incorporation of environmental concerns was first met with resistance within the DOH and
engineering communities, long used to designing projects without regard to adverse
environmental effects. However, over a three-year period, this culture has been modified so that
the environmental issues are now incorporated into design from preconception (Hardy, 2001).
The Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Telecommunications (MOPTT) is progressing a
program to increase public involvement in project formulation and implementation (MOPTT,
2001). Nascent local NGOs are also voicing opinion regarding environmental issues. There
still is a significant contingent, however, that considers water that reaches the ocean as wasted.

Knowledge

There are three principal sources of improving knowledge of river ecosystems in Chile: (1)
scientific investigations (often conducted at universities) with funds from CONICYT

6
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

(government scientific research fund) and others sources, (2) investigations sponsored by the
DGA, and (3) environmental baseline studies required as part of project EIAs. These efforts
have resulted in improving knowledge of the river environment, as evidenced in improved
hydrobiological characterization and better estimation of various states of endangerment of flora
and fauna (DGA, 1993; DGA 1996, Glade, 1988 and 1993; Campos et al., 1998; Salazar et al.,
2001).

Legal Determination and Availability of Instream Flows

Presently, there are three manners in which instream and / or environmental flows are
safeguarded in Chile: (1) unused water rights, (2) determination of instream flows by the DGA
since 1994, and (3) flows specified in EIAs.

Unused Water Rights

Unused water rights presently provide additional instream flows. They are a product of two
items. First, irrigators hold additional water rights as a hedge against drought (Hadjigeorgalis,
1999). Second, the present Water Code is permissive in that one can request and maintain water
rights essentially free of charge, with no design to use them, nor with justification of the request.
In some instances, this has lead to accumulation of water rights, which are not always extracted.
This unused water, nevertheless, can be extracted or transacted at any time. Consequently, a
paper title suddenly can be converted into an active title. In many instances, therefore, the
availability of water for the environment is less than apparent from observation of river flow.

One of the proposed changes to the Water Code is a patent tax for unused rights. The idea
purportedly is to improve economic and water use efficiency. One can avoid the patent tax by
returning a water right to the DGA, which in turn could be granted to another who potentially
would make better use of the water. An unintended consequence of the patent tax is that it may
encourage inefficient water use by increasing diversions to avoid the tax. Regardless, if the
presently unused water is actually diverted, instream flows would be reduced drastically.

Instream Flow Determination by the DGA

The DGA has included instream flows when considering third party rights since 1994. Some
argue that the DGA cannot legally dictate instream flows (environmental and other in situ uses)
in water rights authorizations (Vergara, 1999). However, the Comptroller's office, which
reviews constitutionality of government acts, has approved water rights authorizations with
instream flows guarantees. The DGA determines instream flows based on hydrologic records,
usually 10% of average monthly flow (DGA, 1995):

(i) Qenv = 10% of the average annual flow

(ii) Qenv = 50% of the summer low flow (95% exceedance);
(iii) Qenv = flow that is exceeded at least 330 days a year;
(iv) Qenv = flow that is exceeded at least 347 days a year (Swiss method).

The method is left to the discretion of the DGA personnel evaluating the water right petition,
although data availability often drives which method is utilized. While a petitioner may be
granted a water right subject to instream flow provisions by the DGA, approval of an EIA might
further restrict exercising the water right for a specific project. The condition of instream flow
observance is made for new water rights. In some rivers, rights holders within the same Section
are subject to different instream flows requirements.

7
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Environmental Impact Assessments and Hydraulic Structure Operation

Prior to the 1990s, environmental review within the project approval process was not
formalized. Construction of dams, for example, was carried out without regard to habitat
alteration and downstream impacts. Dams constructed prior to 1990 are operated to maximize
extractive and hydropower uses. Moreover, many of these dams were handed over to irrigators
and / or privatized. ENDESA, the national energy company, was privatized in 1989 with all
assets, information, and water rights that were developed and held for the public good. These
assets can be operated without regard to instream flows.

The National Commission of Energy regulates hydropower. Dam release schedules are guided
by water rights conditions issued by the DGA and by the Economic Load Dispatch Center
(CDEC), a consortium of operators pertaining to the energy grid in which they operate. Its
principal operating criterion is to minimize cost of energy production. CDEC principles do not
include environmental management (CNE, 1997).

The Environmental Framework Law was passed in 1994. One item was the creation of the
System of Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA). Hydraulic projects subject to the SEIA
are:

• Aqueducts, reservoirs, dams, and siphons that require approval under Article 294 of the
Water Code.
• Dams 5 meters or more in height or 15 meters or more in length;
• Any draining of oases in Regions I and II or water bodies involving 10 hectares
(Regions I to IV), 20 hectares (Regions V to VII and the Metropolitan Region), and 30
hectares (Regions VIII to XII);
• Extraction of material from water courses or bodies involving 20,000 cubic meters or
more (Regions I to III) or 50,000 cubic meters or more (Regions IV to XII);
• Defense or alteration of a water course or body involving removal or locating 100,000
cubic meters or more of material.
• Energy generation in excess of 3 megawatts (Fuentes, 1999).

Some companies voluntarily submitted EIAs prior to obligatory compliance in 1997. Those
EIAs were evaluated with much less rigor than later EIAs. It has been a learning curve and
capacity building exercise for all parties involved. Early EIAs were often poorly completed
(e.g. EULA, 1992; Meier, 1995). CONAMA approved many without understanding the
environmental ramifications of decisions. Instream flow issues are referred to the DGA for
technical input. The final decision lies with CONAMA, which must contend with political
influence. Both the quality of assessment and rigor of evaluation have improved with time
(Table IV).

Application of Instream Flow Methodologies

A variety of different instream flow methods have been applied in Chile with varying ecological
impacts (Table IV). Early instream applications were based on hydrologic records, often the
Swiss method. The Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) component of the Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) was applied in four instances: one pilot study and three
EIAs. Assessments completed now, especially those produced for DOH projects, embrace
advanced and / or multiple instream flow methods (Table IV). The PHABSIM pilot study was
carried out under the auspices of the DGA to determine its applicability in Chile. Just prior to
the pilot study, the Quilleco EIA (Laja River) was rejected, in large part due to application of
the Swiss method and poor results from a prior project at Rucúe, just upstream, where a similar
hydrologic method was used. Consequently, CONAMA required application of PHABSIM at

8
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Quilleco. In two recently completed EIAs for the DOH (Corrales Reservoir and Victoria
Canal), multiple instream methods were applied, including PHABSIM, as well as methods to
examine recreation and dilution flows. "Holistic" methods have not been applied in Chile,
however (Arthington and Zalucki, 1998).

Application of PHABSIM for the Quilleco EIA

The PHABSIM study for Quilleco consumed one year. The study area was defined as a 6.5
kilometer reach on the Laja River downstream of the confluence with the Manco River and the
proposed project. Five transects were utilized. PHABSIM was used to model six species:
periphyton, macroinvertabrates, Diplomystes nahuelbutaensis, Oncorhynchus mykiss,
Percichthys trucha, and Trichomycterus areolatus, with adult and juvenile life stages of the later
four. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), an introduced species, was included due to its
recreation and economic value. Other species were included because of their endemicity. The
catfish (Diplomystes nahuelbutaensis), moreover, is of high scientific interest since it is under
threat of extinction and a species of little evolution. Due to little previous knowledge, a study of
this species was performed concurrently with the instream flow study. Generation of suitability
curves proved to be a challenge, as none existed for most of the species incorporated in the
study. Useable habitat curves were generated for all species and lifestages examined. The final
instream flow decision was negotiated between CONAMA and the project proponents. 20 cubic
meters per second (m3/s) was agreed as the minimum instream flow, which represented a flow
close to a 'turning point' in many of the derived useable habitat curves. The initial method
suggested around 10 m3/s (CONAMA 2002; EULA, 2000; Valdovinos, 2001)

Critique of the SEIA and Instream Flow Determination

Overall there has not been much consistency in specification of instream flows. In part this is
due to a slow build up of internal capacity and a framework of evaluation. There is also an
absence of river conservation policy or objectives that could guide evaluations. Moreover,
baseline information of river ecosystems still tends to be rudimentary in many areas. EIAs are
evaluated on a case by case basis with little regard to the river ecosystem as a whole.
Cumulative impacts of several projects on the same river have not been evaluated
comprehensively (e.g. Meier, 1995). Earlier approved EIAs utilized simple hydrologic records
without regard to the characteristics of the river in which it was applied. Little attention has
been afforded to endangered species, which are found in nearly every Chilean river. Minimum
flows have been the targeted norm and common terminology. The importance of mimicking the
natural flow regime is absent in nearly all EIAs, such as inclusion of flushing flows and seasonal
high flows (Arthington and Zalucki, 1998; Brookes, 1995; Poff et al., 1997; Tharme, 1996).
Nor is it apparent that temperature impacts have been addressed. Moreover, no analysis has
been performed to evaluate adverse impacts in the estuarine and coastal environments due to
decreased freshwater input. Monitoring has been specified in some EIAs. However, it is
unclear if any follow up action has been undertaken in response to monitoring results. Later
EIAs are beginning to address some of these issues. Last, the latest study of endangered species
(Campos et al., 1998) is not used in EIAs, purportedly because of a political decision; the latest
study indicates more species are at risk, which may impact development of projects.

DISCUSSION

Historical water allocation for the environment has been jeopardized through a series of policies
and lack of attention to instream flows. Efforts have been initiated in some areas, whereas little
progress has been advanced in others.

9
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Threats to Water Allocation for the Environment in Chile

Threats include:

• Sectorial planning;
• Lack of incorporation of non-water title interests;
• Section basis of legal and water rights allocation;
• Water rights based on extractive uses;
• Ideological and value logjam to modifications of Water Code;
• Government objective to maximize water use;
• Water accounting;
• Paper titles;
• Water transactions;
• Inconsistent specification / methods of instream flow requirements;
• Minimum instream flow targeted rather than flow regime;
• EIAs evaluated on a case by case basis, with few instances of considering cumulative and
holistic river ecosystem effects;
• Lack of environmental baseline;
• Lack of knowledge and realization of river function and structure;
• Lack of use of latest endangered species study;
• Some political interference in CONAMA evaluations and management;
• Lack of river conservation policy;
• Lack of river system instream flow guidelines and objectives;
• Disjointed policies at governmental level;
• Lack of flexibility and adaptive management approach to water allocation.

Improvement to Water Allocation for the Environment in Chile

There have been a series of improvements:

• Studies and capacity building;

• Initial reservation of instream flows for the environment;
• Initial applications of more advanced instream flow methodologies;
• More thorough EIAs of projects;
• Global Environment Facility and World Bank sponsored conservation and biodiversity
study;
• Nascent efforts of integrated water assessment and resource management;
• Improved coordination at governmental level;
• Improved incorporation of environmental considerations in planning, construction, and
operation of hydraulic structures;
• Renewed effort to include public input from the beginning of project planning.

Other Impacts

Water allocation (the focus of this paper) is not the only threat to the ecology of the river
ecosystem. Other threats include habitat alteration (narrowing of floodplains, encroachment and
extractions within the riverbed, and hydraulic structures), introduction of exotic species
(Campos et al., 1998), and adverse water quality.

CONCLUSION

Historically, instream flows have been established in industrialized countries at a period when
the resource is already under stress (Figure 3). Establishment of instream flows is often

10
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

prompted by the public, reflecting changing values and demand for environmental goods. In
one sense, historically instream flows represent what economists term a luxury good. As
income rises in a country, water extractions tend to rise (often accompanied by water quality
problems), and there is awareness of a degraded environment. Individuals demand better
environment goods, such as functioning river ecosystems.

In Chile, increased extractions and construction of hydraulic works have left less water for the
environment - the exploitation phase (Figure 3). Since the early 1990s (which also coincides
with return to democracy) individuals have begun to call for establishment of instream flows.
The concept has slowly been incorporated into legal requirements. However, these instream
flows are minimum flows, the turning point of water allocation for the environment (Figure 3).

Historically and in Chile, decisions continue to be based on partial information regarding the
value of water (Figure 4). Often these decisions are limited to the direct value to users of water;
freshwater ecosystem services are not tabulated (Postel and Carpenter, 1998). Methods to
evaluate economic benefits of instream flows and nonmarket goods have advanced, although
criticism still persists (Braden, 2000; Shabman and Stephenson, 2000; Loomis, 2000). These
evaluations provide information so that decisions are based on the economic value of water
rather than simply the direct value to water users (Figure 4). In industrialized countries,
however, disposable income is much higher than that in less-developed countries and recreation
and ecoindustries can account for significant value to maintain instream flows. This fact could
imply that values of indirect uses and other values are less in countries in development simply
because individuals are satisfying basic needs and are less willing (able) to pay for services
provided by instream flows. The full value of water, moreover, includes the intrinsic value
(Figure 4).

Many manners are utilized to secure flows for the environment, including reoperation of water
infrastructure and purchase of water rights (Figure 3). Restoration never completely re-
establishes a degraded environment due to habitat alteration and flow regime changes. Rather
efforts restore a reduced and incomplete version of pre-development. Furthermore, flows
diverted and used for producing goods (e.g., agricultural crops) that are later withdrawn and
restored to instream use, often result in significant infrastructure disruption, dislocation of
economies, and general societal consternation which can be quite costly, such as is occurring in
the Central Valley Project and Trinity River in California, and the Everglade restoration project
in Florida. Better conservation of ecosystems and sustainable economic benefits may have been
reached through incorporation of instream flow and environmental objectives early in water
management and extraction. Countries in development may have the opportunity to incorporate
instream flows within water management prior to intense development of the resource to better
conserve ecosystems, develop sustainably, and avoid societal disruption.

Whether the historical pattern is to be repeated in countries in development is uncertain. Better

management and concepts of sustainable use are being forwarded (ASCE and UNESCO, 1998;
CEPAL, 1998; Gleick et al., 1995; WWC, 2000). Still, basic differences in conceptions of river
conservation persist between those in industrialized and less-developed countries (Davies et al.,
2000). This fact ties into the provision of basic services of water supply and sanitation. Often
where there is a deficit in basic services, policies such as sustainable use and integrated water
use are not progressed. Instream flows cannot be dealt with in isolation but rather is best
addressed within integrated water management.

Experience in Chile, however, is progressing along a pattern similar to that followed in

industrialized countries. While held up as an example of innovative water management with its
market based system and investment in hydraulic projects, sustainable use of the resource has
not been achieved in Chile. Since 1981, the private sector has been allowed to capture water

11
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

rights without regard to public good and environmental protection. In the 1990s dual objectives
were pursued. Increased investment in hydraulic structures produced social benefit but
jeopardized river ecosystems. At the same time, environmental management was slowly put in
place. A conservation policy and implementation of sustainable water use is still lacking.
Measures taken over the last decade, including the SEIA and internal policies at the DGA and
DOH, have contributed to inclusion of some instream flows in integrated water management.
However, exercise of paper water rights, newly constructed hydraulic structures, and increased
water market transactions not subject to environmental review may further impair river ecology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to the individuals who allowed time to be interviewed. Claudio Meier and Darryl Davis
provided comments on a draft of the paper. Viviana Becker lent assistance to locate reference
material.

The opinions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do no represent those of their
respective institutions.

REFERENCES

Arratia G. 1981. Géneros de peces de aguas continentales de Chile. Occasional Publication of the
National Museum of Natural History. 34:3-108.
Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds.). 1998. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Techniques:
Review of Methods. Occasional Paper No. 27/98. Canberra, Australia: Land and Water Resources
Research and Development Corporation.
ASCE and UNESCO (American Society of Civil Engineers and United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization). 1998. Sustainability Criteria for Water Resources Systems. Reston,
Virginia: ASCE.
Bahamonde N, Caravacho A, Jara C, López M, Ponce F, Retamal MA, Rudolph E. 1998. Categorías de
conservación de decápodos nativos de aguas continentales de Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional de
Historia Natural. 47:91-100.
Bauer CJ. 1998. Against the Current: Privatization, Water Markets, and the State in Chile. Boston,
Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Braden, JB. 2000. Value of Valuation: Introduction. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management. 126:336-338.
Brookes A. 1995. The Importance of High Flows for Riverine Environments. In The Ecological Basis
for River Management, Harper DM, Ferguson AJD (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: New York; 33-50.
Callicott JB. 1994. Earth's Insights. A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the
Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. University of California Press: Berkeley, California.
Campos H, Dazarola G, Dyer B, Fuentes L, Gavilán JF, Huaquín L, Martínez G, Meléndez R, Pequeño G,
Ponce F, Ruiz VH, Sielfeld W, Soto D, Vega R, Vila I. 1998. Categorías de conservación de peces
nativos de aguas continentales de Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural 47:101-122.
Campos H, Ruiz VH, Gavilán JF, Alay F. 1993. Los peces del río Biobío. Publication Series Volume 5.
EULA, University of Concepción: Concepción, Chile.
CEPAL (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean). 1998. Recomendaciones de las
reuniones internaciones sobre el agua: de Mar del Plata a Paris. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL.
Chile, Republic of. 2000. Formula indicación al proyecto modificaciones al Código de Aguas, various
bulletins - 1992, 1993, 1996, and 2000. Republic of Chile: Santiago, Chile.
Chile, Republic of. 1996. Resolution 186. Diario Oficial, 15 May. Republic of Chile: Santiago, Chile.
Chile, Republic of. 1988. Nuevo código de aguas. Editora Cumbres Ltda: Santiago, Chile.
CNE (National Energy Commission). 1997. The Electric Sector in Chile. CNE: Santiago, Chile.
CONAMA (National Environmental Commission). 2002. Sistema de evaluación de impacto ambiental.
Información sobre proyectos. <http://www.conama.cl/seia/frame_proyectos.htm>. Accessed
December 2001 and January and February 2002.

12
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Davies BR, Boon PJ, Petts GE. 2000. River Conservation: A Global Imperative. In Global Perspectives
on River Conservation. Science, Policy and Practice, Boon PJ, Davies BR, Petts GE (eds.). John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd: New York; xi-xvi.
Davis M, Lund J. 2000. Reconciling Economic, Environmental, and Social Objectives in Chilean Water
Resources Management. Xth World Water Congress. International Water Resources Association:
Carbondale, Illinois.
Del Fávero G, Katz R. 2000. Gestión ambiental en Chile. In La transformación económica de Chile,
Larraín F, Vergara R (eds.). Centro de Estudios Públicos: Santiago, Chile; 247-291.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1999a. Aspectos básicos a considerar en la evaluación ambiental de
embalses. Technical Note 5/99. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public Works, DGA: Santiago, Chile.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1999b. Política nacional de aguas. Republic of Chile, Ministry of
Public Works, DGA: Santiago, Chile.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1996a. Análisis del impacto económico por sequías hidrológicas,
informe de avance, etapa 3: capítulo V - caracterización de los déficit, III-VII Región. Prepared by the
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public Works, DGA: Santiago,
Chile.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1996b. Análisis uso actual y futuro de los recursos hídricos de Chile,
Final Report, Executive Summary. Prepared by IPLA Ltda. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public
Works, DGA: Santiago, Chile.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1996c. Caudales ecológicos caracterización hidroambiental, Stage
1, Final Report. Prepared by AC Ingenieros Consultores Ltda. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public
Works, DGA: Santiago, Chile.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1995. Bases para la formulación de un manual de normas y
procedimientos para la administración de recursos hídricos. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public
Works, DGA: Santiago, Chile.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1993. Caudales ecológicos en Regiones IV, V y Metropolitana, Final
Report. Prepared by R&Q Ingenieros Consultores Ltda. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public Works,
DGA: Santiago, Chile.
DGA (General Water Directorate). 1987. Balance hídrico. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public Works,
DGA: Santiago, Chile.
Donoso G, Montero JP, Vicuña S. 2000. Análisis de los mercados de derechos de aprovechamiento de
agua en las cuencas del Maipo y el sistema Paloma en Chile: efectos de la variabilidad en la oferta
hídricoa y de los costos de transacción. In Actas III Jornadas Derechos de Aguas, Vergara A (ed.),
draft. Pontifical Catholic University of Chile: Santiago, Chile; 91-112.
Dourojeanni A, Berrios J. 1996. Eficiencia igual mercado igual propiedad del agua: una ecuación
incompleta (el caso de Chile). Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. Institute of Environmental
Studies: Lima, Peru.
Ecology and Environment Inc. 1993. Assessment of the Downstream Impacts Pangue Power Station
Region VIII, Chile. Empresa Eléctrica Pangue SA: Santiago, Chile.
Ecology and Environment Inc. and Agrotec Ltda. 1991. Evaluación de impactos ambientales relevantes
del proyecto Pangue. Final Report. Pangue S.A.: Santiago, Chile.
EULA (European Union Latin American Center). 2000. Determinación caudal mínimo Central
Quilleco. Background study for Quilleco Hydroelectric Plant Environmental Impact Assessment.
EULA, University of Concepción: Concepción, Chile.
EULA (European Union Latin American Center). 1992. Análisis del estudio de impacto ambiental del
proyecto Pangue. Report to the House of Representatives. EULA, University of Concepción:
Concepción, Chile.
Errázuriz AM (ed.). 1998. Manual de geografía de Chile, Third Edition. Editorial Andrés Bello.
Santiago, Chile.
Ffrench-Davis R. 1999. Entre el neoliberalismo y el crecimiento con equidad. Tres décadas de política
económica en Chile. Dolmen Ediciones: Santiago, Chile.
Fuentes F. 1999. Manual de derecho ambiental. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Libromar Ltda.
Glade A. (ed.) 1993. Libro rojo de los vertebrados terrestres de Chile. Second Edition. National
Forestry Corporation of Chile: Santiago, Chile.
Glade A. (ed.) 1988. Libro rojo de los vertebrados terrestres de Chile. National Forestry Corporation of
Chile: Santiago, Chile.
Gleick PH, Loh P, Gomez SV, Morrison J. 1995. California Water 2020. A Sustainable Vision. Pacific
Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security: Oakland, California.

13
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Hachette D. 2000. Privitaciones: reforma estructural pero inconclusa. In La transformación económica

de Chile, Larraín F, Vergara R (eds.). Centro de Estudios Públicos: Santiago, Chile; 111-154.
Hadjigeorgalis E. 1999. Private Water Markets in Agriculture and the Effects of Risk, Uncertainty and
Transaction Costs. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural
and Resource Economics: Davis, California.
Hair JD, Dysart BC, Danielson LJ, Rubalcava AO. 1997. Pangue Hydrolectric Project (Chile): An
Independent Review of the International Finance Corporation{s Compliance with Applicable World
Bank Group Environmental And Social Requirements. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Hardy G. 2001. Personal Communication. Environmental Engineering. Directorate of Hydraulic
Works, Department of Environmental Management.
Hearne RR, Easter KW. 1995. Water Allocation and Water Markets: An Analysis of Gains-from-Trade
in Chile, World Bank Technical Paper Number 315. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Hudson RA (ed.). 1994. Chile. A Country Study. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
Larraín F, Vergara R (eds.). 2000. La transformación económica de Chile. Centro de Estudios Públicos:
Santiago, Chile.
Lobo E (ed.). 1978. Recursos de agua en Chile. Republic of Chile, Ministry of Public Works, DGA:
Santiago, Chile.
Loomis JB. 2000. Environmental Valuation Techniques in Water Resource Decision Making. Journal
of Water Resources Planning and Management. 126:339-344.
Meier CI. 1995. A Critical Review of the Pangue Dam Project EIA (Biobío, Chile). In Water Resources
Engineering, Proceedings of the First International Conference, Espey WH, Combs PG (eds.).
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia.
MOP (Ministry of Public Works). 2000. La década de la infraestructura. 1990-1999. MOP: Santiago,
Chile.
MOP, GEF and WB (Ministry of Public Works, Global Environment Facility, and The World Bank).
2000. Perfiles Ecológicos de las Cuencas de los Ríos Lluta, San José, Huasco, Elqui, Limarí, Petorca,
La Ligua, Mataquito, Itata, Imperial y del Lago Budi. MOP: Santiago, Chile.
MOPTT (Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Telecommunications) 2001. Secretaría Ejecutiva de
Medio Ambiente y Territorio: Bases de la nueva institucionalidad medioambiental y territorial del
Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transporte y Telecomunicaciones de Chile (MOPTT). MOPTT:
Santiago, Chile.
Oppenheim LH. 1999. Politics in Chile. Democracy, Authoritarianism, and the Search for Development.
Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado.
Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997.
The Natural Flow Regime: A Paradigm for River Conservation and Restoration. Bioscience. 47:769-
784.
Postel S, Carpenter S. 1998. Freshwater Ecosystem Services. In Nature's Services. Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Daily GC (ed.). Island Press: Washington, DC; 195-214.
Pizarro R, Salazar C, Bravo C, Caro J. 1999. Recursos hídricos. In Informe país. Estado del medio
ambiente en Chile - 1999. LOM Ediciones: Santiago, Chile.
Ríos M, Quiroz J. 1995. The Market of Water Rights in Chile: Major Issues. World Bank Technical
Paper Number 285. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Rogers P, Bhatia R, Huber A. 1998. Water as a Social and Economic Good: How to Put the Principle
Into Practice. TAC Background Paper No. 2. Global Water Partnership: Stockholm, Sweden.
Ruiz VH, López MT, Moyano HI, Marchant M. 1993. Ictiología del Alto Biobío: Aspectos
taxonómicos, alimentarios, reproductivos y ecológicos. Una discusión sobre la hoya. Guyana Zoology.
57:77-88.
Ruiz VH, Berra TM. 1994. Fishes of the High Biobio River of South-Central Chile with Notes on Diet
and Speculations on the Origin of the Ichthyofauna. Ichthyofauna Exploration of Freshwater. 5:5-18.
Salazar C, Rojas L, Lillo A. 2001. Estimación de requerimientos hídricos de humedales del norte de
Chile. In III Encuentro de Aguas. Directorate of Hydraulic Works: Santiago, Chile.
Shabman L, Stephenson K. Environmental Valuation and Its Economic Critics. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management. 126:382-388.
Sessions G (ed.). 1995. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of
the New Environmentalism. Shambala: Boston, Massachusetts.
Schlauch PJ, Jensen LJ. 1996. Chilean Environmental Framework Law. Colorado Journal of
International Environmental Law and Policy. 7:319-329.

14
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Tharme R. 1996. Review of International Methodologies for the Quantification of the Instream Flow
Requirements of Rivers. Final Report. Water Law Review Report for Policy Development.
Commissioned by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Freshwater Research Unit. Zoology
Department. University of Cape Town: Cape Town, South Africa.
Valdovinos C. 2001. Personal Communication. Biologist. EULA Center. University of Concepción.
Vergara A. 1999. Estatuto jurídico de la fijación de caudales mínimos o ecológicos. Revista de derecho
administrativo económico. 1:127-134.
Vergara A. 1998. Personal Communication. Professor of Law, School of Public Law, Pontifical
Catholic University of Chile.
Williams J, Dougnac A. 1999. Introducción a la vida cívica. Editorial Universitaria: Santiago, Chile.
WWC (World Water Commission). 2000. World Water Vision. WWC: Marseille, France.
Zimmerman JE, Callicott JB, Sessions G, Warren KJ, Clark J (eds.). 1998. Environmental Philosophy.
From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Second Edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey.

15
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Table I. State of Native Freshwater Fish and Crustaceans in Chile

Category Number of Fish Number of Crustaceans

Endangered 17 3
Vulnerable 15 5
Rare 4 0
Insufficient Knowledge 8 10
Not Endangered 2 4
Total 46 22
Source: Campos et al., 1998 (fish) and Bahamonde et al., 1998 (crustaceans).
Note: National totals. Regional totals differ.

16
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Table II. Identified Lines of Action and Progress

No. Lines of Action Progress

1 Judicial review and legal condition of water right petition
• Patent tax for nonuse of water rights
• Obligation to justify the quantity of water requested
• Allow DGA to deny rights for reasons of common
good
2 Integrated water management Director plan of several watersheds
• Director plans of water use and projects completed and/or under
• Watershed management organizations development by DGA.
3 Environment and contamination CONAMA has passed regulations
• Make use of legal attributes to protect regarding industrial discharges,
compiled an inventory, and begun
to enforce;
CONAMA has established ambient
standards.
4 Maximum use of unused water Construction of hydraulic projects
• Hydraulic structures by the DOH;
• Attraction of private funding New reservoirs formulated as
• Use of groundwater private concessions;
• Improve efficiency Some improvement regarding
• Establish a water tariff system compilation of registry of water
• Improve impediments to market transactions rights titles.
5 Improve administration of water by user groups Several small programs to educate
and provide technical assistance by
various government agencies.
6 Evaluation and knowledge about the resource Numerous projects carried out by
DGA, including surface and
groundwater quantity and quality
models and studies.
7 Technical and public education Some public awareness and
technical publications produced by
various government agencies.
Source: DGA, 1999 (lines of action).

17
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Table III. Historical Development and Key Events in Environmental and Environmental Flow
Management in Chile

Item Year Item Key Issues

1 1973 Military coup • Government eventually adopts neoliberal
(Ffrench-Davis, 1999; Hudson, socioeconomic system;
1994; Oppenheim, 1999; Pizarro et • Government assumes secondary role in day
al., 1999) to day economic activities;
• Environment and water are treated largely as
private, economic commodities;
• Little investment in hydraulic projects, as
private sector left to fund projects.
2 1981 Water Code adopted • See main text.
(Chile, 1988)
3 1989 ENDESA privatized • National energy company privatized with all
(Hachette, 2000). dams, information, and nonconsumptive
water rights.
4 1990 Military regime ends and democracy • Economic system largely left in tact;
restored • Increased emphasis on social issues and
(Ffrench-Davis, 1999; Hudson, public goods;
1994; Oppenheim, 1999; Pizarro et • Increased investment in hydraulic projects.
al., 1999)
5 1990 Creation of National Environmental • Principal and coordinating agency to deal
Commission (CONAMA) with environmental issues.
(Fuentes, 1999; Del Fávero & Katz,
2000)
6 1991 Pangue Dam EIA completed • ENDESA peeking energy plant project -
(Ecology and Environment and formulated around 2 turbine system to
Agrotec, 1991) maximize economic return of energy
production;
• Downstream impacts not included in the
original EIA;
• No provision for environmental flows; dam
to operate with no releases up to 19 hours a
day;
• Construction approved prior to completion of
EIA.
7 1992 EULA critique of Pangue EIA • Lack of inclusion of downstream effects
(EULA, 1992; Meier, 1995) highlighted.
8 1993 Revised Pangue EIA completed • Downstream effects included;
(Ecology and Environment, 1993) • Political decision to continue construction of
dam.
9 1993 Hydrobiological characterization of • Spot sample studies of flora and fauna of
rivers in Regions IV, V and central rivers.
Metropolitan
(DGA, 1993)
10 1994 DGA adopts instream flow condition • New water rights authorizations must observe
(environmental and other instream instream flows as part of no harm to third
uses) parties.
(DGA, 1995)
11 1994 Environmental Framework Law • Review and consolidate environmental
(EFL) (Fuentes, 1999; Del Fávero legislation;
and Katz, 2000; Schlauch and • Territorial planning;
Jensen, 1996). • Conservation of flora and fauna;
• System of Environmental Impact Assessment
(SEIA).

18
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Item Year Item Key Issues

12 1995 Santa Juana dam completed • Project formulated prior to EFL and water
(MOP, 2000) rights delivered prior to adoption of instream
flow consideration by DGA;
• No environmental flows required for dam
operation.
13 1996 Hydrobiological characterization of • Spot sample studies of flora and fauna of
rivers in Regions IX and X southern rivers.
(DGA, 1996c)
14 1997 Regulation of EFL • Projects subject to SEIA must file EIA or
(Fuentes, 1999; Del Fávero & Katz, Declaration of Impact Assessment (DIA).
2000)
15 1997 Pangue dam completed • Flow regime altered on Bio Bio river.
16 1998 Rucúe EIA approved • Environmental flows based upon Swiss
(CONAMA, 2002) (Q347) method in Laja river;
• Resulting damage to downstream ecosystem
with no surface flow at times due to
infiltration.
17 1998 Quilleco EIA rejected • Downstream of Rucúe;
(CONAMA, 2002; Valdovinos, • Swiss (Q347) method deemed insufficient in
2001) light of Rucúe experience;
• PHABSIM applied for one of the first times
in Chile.
18 1998 Directorate of Hydraulic Works • Incorporate environmental management and
(DOH) establishes environmental consistency in DOH projects.
management unit
(Hardy, 2001)
19 1999 Puclaro dam completed • Regulation of entire flow of Elqui River;
(MOP, 2000) • Project formulated prior to EFL and water
rights delivered prior to adoption of instream
flow consideration by DGA;
• Bypassed voluntary submittal to SEIA
purportedly to avoid delays and complete
during President Frei's administration;
• No environmental flows required for dam
operation.
20 1999 National policy on water resources • See main text.
(DGA, 1999b)
21 1999 DGA issues directive regarding • Environmental evaluation of reservoirs;
reservoirs and environmental flows • Establishment of environmental flows.
(DGA, 1999a)
22 2000 Ecological profile study outlined • Global Environment Facility and The World
(MOP, GEF and WB, 2000). Bank sponsored study;
• Forms part of integrated water resource
management plan at Ministry of Public
Works, Transport, and Telecommunications;
• To include ecological characterization for
purposes of developing biological
conservation within 11 watersheds and one
lake in central Chile (including near north
and near south).
23 2001 Ministry of Public Works, Transport, • MOPTT (includes DOH) focus to incorporate
and Telecommunication, (MOPTT) consistent environment management,
establishes environmental audit unit consistent EIAs and encourage public
(MOPTT, 2001) participation in MOPTT projects.

19
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Table IV. Instream Flow Requirements in Project Approval

Initial Instream Final / Adopted
Project Region River Type Sector a Owner Year b Status Comments
Flow Method Instream Flow Method

Prior to Establishment of the National Environmental Commission in 1990

Canutillar X Chapo (lake) Weir Hydropower ENDESA 1989 c Approved d None None Weir built at Chapo Lake. Discharge to Relocaví Estuary. Drought and high use dried up river temporarily in early 1990s.

Prior to Environmental Framework Law of 1994 (and after Establishment of National Environmental Commission in 1990)

Pangue VIII Bio Bio Dam Hydropower Pangue (ENDESA) 1991 e Approved d None Swiss (Q347) First dam on the Bio Bio River. Regulation of daily to weekly flows. Approved by central government prior to submission of EIA.f
Santa Juana III Huasco Dam Irrigation Directorate of Hydraulic Works 1992 g Approved d None None First dam on the river. Interannual storage.
Laja - Diguillín VIII Laja Canal Irrigation Directorate of Hydraulic Works 1994 h Approved d None None Several diversions for hydropower already present on river.

Following Passage of the Environmental Framework Law of 1994 (Voluntary Submittal to System of Environmental Impact Assessment(SEIA))

Puclaro IV Elqui Dam Irrigation Directorate of Hydraulic Works 1995 i Approved d None None First dam on the river. Interannual storage. Not voluntarily submitted to SEIA.
Loma Alta VII Maule Diversion Hydropower Pehuenche 1995 Approved N/A j --- Six diversions for hydropower already present on river. Project located between two existing diversions.
Alto Cachapoal VI Cachapoal Diversion Hydropower CODELCO 1995 Approved N/A j --- Diversion in upper watershed with discharge at mid-watershed in Cortaderal and Cipreses Rivers.
Mampil / SE Rucúe VIII Laja Diversion Hydropower Mampil Electric Co. 1995 Approved N/A j --- Several diversions for hydropower already present on river.
Ralco VIII Bio Bio Dam Hydropower Pangue (ENDESA) 1996 Approved Swiss (Q347) Modified wetted perimeter Short reach between Ralco and Pangue reservoirs. Instream flows established to maintain depth. Interannual storage.
Rucúe VIII Laja Diversion Hydropower Colbún Machicura Electric Co. 1996 Approved Swiss (Q347) Q347 (Swiss) Several diversions for hydropower already present on river. Downstream reach dries up frequently with specified instream flow.

Following Regulation of Environmental Framework Law of 1997 (Obligatory Submittal to System of Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA))

Lago Atravesado XI Desaguadero Weir Hydropower EDELAYSEN 1998 Approved None Q = 1 m3/s Lake level raised by weir. Flow discharged downstream at Desaguadero River.
Quilleco VIII Laja Diversion Hydropower Colbún Machicura Electric Co. 1998 Approved Swiss (Q347) Modified PHABSIM Several diversions for hydropower already present on river. See main text.
Corrales IV Choapa Dam Irrigation Directorate of Hydraulic Works 1998 Approved Various 0.2 x Q monthly daily minimum First dam on river. Regulation of annual flows.
Vizcachas V Aconcagua Diversion Hydropower Guardia Vieja Hydroelectric 1999 Approved None None Offstream storage. Daily regulation. Declaration of Environmental Impact submitted.

Illapel (El Bato) IV Illapel Dam Irrigation Directorate of Hydraulic Works 1999 Approved Various 0.75 x Qanual First dam on river. Instream flow is equal to reservoir inflow during March-May. Regulation of annual flows.

Recently Submitted Projects

Cuervo
Alumysa Joint Venture and
Alumysa XI Blanco 3 Dams Hydropower 2001 Submitted Various Evaluating Multiple project EIA (dams, power plants, roads, aluminum factory, port) in relatively undisturbed area.
Noranda Holdings Ltd.
Condor (lake)
Victoria IX Cautín Canal Irrigation Directorate of Hydraulic Works 2001 Submitted Various Evaluating Large canal intake from unregulated river.

Sources: CONAMA, 2002; MOP, 2000.

Notes: a Dams in Chile have been almost exclusively constructed for single purpose. No dams have been constructed for flood control purpose. Puclaro is the first dam that is operated with a specific flood pool.
b Year submitted to the System of Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA), unless otherwise noted.
c Construction 1989-91. The project was approved by the National Energy Company (ENDESA) and funding established prior to 1989.
Projects proposed prior to establishment of the SEIA were advanced by government agencies which in turn submitted them to the central government to receive funding. Private proponents submitted projects to individual government agencies for approval, per existing
d legislation at the time (which did not include formal environmental review). Projects planned and constructed by government organizations (which ENDESA was prior to 1989) did and do not require approval (of structures) from the DGA under Article 284 of the Water
Code, whereas private projects require DGA approval.
e Not submitted to formal environmental impact assessment procedure but through internal government approval process.
f Received funding from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). An audit of the project and IMF involvement concluded that the project violated IMF's environmental protocols (Hair et al., 1997).
g Construction 1992-5. The project was approved by the Directorate of Hydraulic Works and funding established prior to 1992.
h Construction 1994-2004. Main diversion canal construction began in 1994. Later projects (including a dam) are subject to the SEIA.
i Construction 1995-9. The project was approved by the Directorate of Hydraulic Works and funding established prior to 1995.
j Information regarding instream flow requirements was not available. Reservoir operation requires compliance with downstream water rights holders and no harm to third parties, which prior to 1994 did not allow for instream flows.

20
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

Figure Legends

Figure 1. Location Maps and Water Supply and Demand: (a) Location Map, (b)
Administrative Regions, (c) National Consumptive Water Use (DGA, 1996b), (d)
National Water Use (DGA, 1996b), (e) Mean Annual Precipitation (DGA, 1987),
(f) Reservoir Storage Capacity (Lobos, 1978, updated), (g) Regional Consumptive
Use (DGA, 1996b), and (h) Regional Population (Errázuriz, 1998).

Figure 2. Mean Flow Regimes at Mid to Upper Watershed (DGA, 1996b)

Figure 3. Historic Relationship of Economic Development and Water Allocation for the
Environment

Figure 4. Full Value of Use of Water (Rodgers et al., 1998)

21
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

4500 4189.0
SOUTH AMERICA
4000

Precipitation (mm)
3500 3027.0
3000
2447.5
2500
BOLIVIA 1798.6
2000
1473.2
PERU BRAZIL
1500 1138.1
PARAGUAY 1000 651.1
PACIFIC 379.8 415.6
OCEAN
500 255.9
12.2
136.5
20.9 35.1
154.4

VIII
VII

XII - West
V - MR
IV

VI

XII - East
II - Rest

IX

XI
II - Plains
I - Rest
URUGUAY

X
I - Plains

III
CHILE
ARGENTINA

Region

CHILE 1960 4204

1500

I 1250

Storage (MCM)
1000
II
750

500
III
250
IV 0
V I II III IV V MR VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
VI MR
Region
VII
VIII
Irrig Hydro Irrig-Hydro Irrig-WSupply WSupply
IX
X Item
Surface Area
Units I II III IV V MR VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
km2 58,698 126,444 75,573 40,656 16,369 15,349 16,365 30,302 36,929 31,858 66,997 109,025 132,034
3
Mean Annual Surface Flow m /s 9 3 3 22 42 110 207 800 1,700 1,050 5,200 10,250 10,200

N 100
XI 90
80
Water Use (%)

Greater Santiago 70
60
XII 50
40
30
20
10
0
Potable
I II III IV V- VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
Water
MR
4.4%
Region
Ag.
Industry Agriculture Potable Water Industry Mining
81.0%
7.9% Item Units I II III IV V MR VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
Consumptive Use m3/s 7 7 16 43 46 130 133 150 98 7 5 18 3
Nonconsumtive Use m3/s 1 0 2 1 17 112 94 738 206 0 240 13 0
Mining
6.7%
6
Inhabitants (Millions)

5
Ag.
24.0% 4

Energy Potable 3
70.4% Water 2
1.3%
Industry 1
2.3%
0
Mining
I II III IV V MR VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
2.0%
Region

Figure 1 Location Maps and Water Supply and Demand: (a) Location Map, (b)
Administrative Regions, (c) National Consumptive Water Use (DGA, 1996b), (d)
National Water Use (DGA, 1996b), (e) Mean Annual Precipitation (DGA, 1987),
(f) Reservoir Storage Capacity (Lobos, 1978, updated), (g) Regional Consumptive
Use (DGA, 1996b), and (h) Regional Population (Errázuriz, 1998).

22
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

5 250
River Flow (m3/s)

River Flow (m3/s)

4 200

3 150

2 100

1 50

0 0

Jul
Jun

Aug

Nov
Sep

Feb
May
Apr

Jan

Mar
Oct

Jul
Dec

Jun

Aug

Nov
Sep

Feb
May
Apr

Jan

Mar
Oct

Dec
Month Month
Aconcagua (IV) Maipo (V - MR)
San José (I) Loa (II) Copiapó (III) Cachapoal (VI)

1250 1250
River Flow (m3/s)

River Flow (m3/s)

1000 1000

750 750

500 500

250 250

0 0
Aug
Apr

May

Jul
Jul

Nov

Mar
Sep

Feb

Jun

Aug

Nov
Jan
Dec

Sep

Feb
Jun

May
Oct

Apr

Jan

Mar
Oct

Dec
Month Month

Maule (VII) Bio Bio (VIII) San Pedro (IX) Bueno (X) Baker (XI) Serrano (XII)

Figure 2 Mean Flow Regimes at Mid to Upper Watershed (DGA, 1996b)

23
 Water Allocation for the Environment

Figure 3.
Predevelopment
vention
Noninter-
Instream Flows in Chile

Extractive Use
Exploitation

Environment
Dams and Hydraulic Works

Minimum Instream Flows /

Instream Flow Regimes Established

Turning Point
Reallocation for the Environment
Public (changing values, demand for
environmental goods)
Legal (revised mandates, public trust, eminent
domain)
Reallocation /
Integrated Use

Economic Development (with political stability)

Physical (reoperation of hydraulic works,
dam removal)
Water market transactions (private and

24
Historic Relationship of Economic Development and Water Allocation for the government)
Davis and Riestra 2002
Instream Flows in Chile Davis and Riestra 2002

(e) Intrinsic Value

(d) Adjustment for

Societal Objectives
(g) FULL
VALUE
(c) Net Benefits from
Indirect Uses
(f) ECONOMIC
VALUE
(b) Net Benefits from
Return Flows

(a) Value to Users

of Water

Figure 4. Full Value of Use of Water

25