|
QUESTIONS FOLLOWING
<br />"LEGISLATIVE" AND
<br />"ADMINISTRATIVE" SESSIONS
<br />2-Charles Pace, Economist, Northwestern Band of Shoshoni
<br />Nation, Challis, Idaho:
<br />I have a question for Mr. Underwood or Mr. Keys. Mr.
<br />Reisner mentioned Milner Dam. He didn't say it by name, but
<br />the Bureau of Rec dewaters the Snake River there, manages for
<br />zero flow and has for years. I guess my question is, when you
<br />look at the values down there, cutthroat trout, white sturgeon,
<br />the threatened and endangered snails. What is it that's keeping
<br />the Bureau from managing that for something better than zero
<br />flows? Is it state law? Is it the policies? Is it project purposes that
<br />it would interfere? Why isn't the Bureau of Rec moving to
<br />provide greater flows at Milner Dam?
<br />A-(John Keys) Well, the Bureau of Reclamation does not
<br />manage the Snake River. The Snake River is managed by
<br />the state of Idaho. It has a system of water rights, and one
<br />of the basis of that water right is zero flow there. We make
<br />releases out of the reservoir system to those people that
<br />own the water there. Your question should be directed to
<br />the state of Idaho, and ask them why they don't change the
<br />whole water-right system for the state. That's really your
<br />question. This is one you can't pin on the Bureau.
<br />2-Mr. Keys? When I ask the State of Idaho that, they tell me
<br />to go talk to you. That it's the Bureau of Rec.
<br />A-(John Keys) Well, l see the watermaster for the Upper
<br />Snake shaking his head "no." I think, seriously, it would
<br />certainly be presumption on the Reclamation's part to think
<br />that we manage the Snake River. All of our projects are
<br />built in accordance with state water rights. They are
<br />managed in accordance with state water rights. And it's
<br />state water law that calls for that operation there. That's not
<br />a Reclamation decision.
<br />2-Matthew Wallace, Earth Day Utah, Holladay, Utah:
<br />I was at a wedding reception; the father of the bride was a
<br />farmer in Bozeman. Recently, I spoke with him, and he
<br />approached me saying, "You know nothing about water, and in
<br />fact, I'm a water-master too." And I said, "Well, I sympathize
<br />with what you're going through." He feels under attack. Various
<br />interests are after his water for instream flow maintenance. My
<br />question is how can a farmer stay in business with reduced water
<br />to irrigate his crops? Does that make sense? Where are they
<br />going to get their income if they have less water, and how are
<br />they going maintain their income?
<br />A-(Dennis Underwood) Let me try, and maybe other
<br />people can potentially add. One of the things that comes to
<br />mind when you're looking at a farmer, and you're right, if,
<br />in fact, he has less water, unless there is some other kind of
<br />change in the equation, then he's potentially going to have
<br />less income. But if you look at some of the improvements -
<br />trying to look at on-farm improvements, looking at
<br />improvements in technology so you can maintain the same,
<br />potentially, the same yield that you're getting.
<br />And when we're making reference to sub-surface drip,
<br />now that doesn't apply to every area. But if you start
<br />looking at something like sub-surface drip where you
<br />actually reduce the water use instead of flood irrigation, by
<br />maybe 50 percent. But also interesting when you look at
<br />things like this is that you also have the opportunity to
<br />reduce these operating costs-meaning cultivating costs,
<br />some of this ag-chemical cost, some of this drainage cost,
<br />some of this land-leveling cost. In many cases, you're
<br />getting double yields. So that's one way.
<br />The other way is some of the things that John had
<br />pointed out. Can we continue to get the economic values
<br />out of those waters and also the environmental values? In
<br />other words, can we move them through the system, get
<br />the instream-flow values, and then still have them available
<br />for the fanner to potentially use?
<br />So, it takes a combination of improved water use and also
<br />some creativity in water management. Those are the things
<br />that are going to bring it about. That's why I indicate into
<br />what John stressed. We're trying to get added values and
<br />benefits, and not get into trade-offs, because you need to
<br />have jobs and you also need to have a safe environment,
<br />and they're not mutually exclusive. You can undertake
<br />these, but it's basically looking at some new disciplines to a
<br />large degree.
<br />2-If there's an outlay of new capital or an expense for new
<br />equipment for new methods of irrigation, who should pay for
<br />that?
<br />A-(Dennis Underwood) There are a couple of ways of
<br />doing it. One is, we're looking at if, in fact, there is some
<br />improvement in technology in terms of irrigation; we're
<br />looking at challenge cost-sharing programs to help prove
<br />that they can be viable in a particular area. In other words,
<br />they're gearing to different water-quality conditions,
<br />different crop types, different soil tops, that we potentially
<br />would be willing to cost-share those type of arrangements.
<br />You're also seeing other arrangements whereby you have
<br />cooperative water-conservation programs. In other words,
<br />if the state water could be put to a different use, that
<br />17
|