Transcript

Clive Strong: The state law process in Idaho has worked

Well, the premise of the question was that the state instream flow statutes aren't working and I would take exception to that. Although there may not be a large number of streams that have been designated, it's not the number of miles that have been designated, it's the streams that have been designated. By and large under the state instream flow statute, we looked to those areas where we have critical problem or need. In Idaho, that has been a success story. A good example is the Lemhi conservation agreement that we have been working on with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service in which we had a situation where a stream was being dried up. We went to the legislature, developed an instream flow for that particular river, and at the same time created a water bank to provide the water necessary to achieve that flow. I think it is more a question of focusing on where the need is as opposed to how many miles or how many different streams have been designated under a particular statute in order to evaluate the effectiveness. With regard to the Reclamation Act, Mr. Keys is correct, they are bound by the laws that created that particular project and have to comply with that project. To the extent they want to change that, it has to go through the state law process. But I would submit to you the state law process in Idaho has worked. Again, I would point back to the fact that, through flow augmentation programs we've worked on at the upper Snake River basin, we've been able to accommodate ESA issues and at the same time continue to honor the contracts that were entered into by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Back to Discussion page