151 



My goal would be to seek arrangements that parallel on the fish 

 side what we have been able to do with Idaho and Montana on the 

 wildUfe side, and I think we have got something if that would 

 occur. 



Mr. DeFazio. One last question, or perhaps two, but one anyway. 



We are in Idaho, so we need to talk a Uttle bit about these up- 

 stream water issues, and in particular it seems that BPA has a 

 growing interest in purchase or rental sorts of agreements. Would 

 you just expand on what you are looking at there and what BPA 

 would be interested in? I mean you made a point I am trying to 

 find in your testimony, kind of interesting, where — ^well just ex- 

 pand on that, maybe I will find the particular reference. 



Mr. Hardy. We have been able, primarily by working with the 

 Bureau of Reclamation, to rent surplus water fi"om particular users 

 in Idaho — primarily through the Bureau or directly with them in 

 terms of some of their uncontracted storage. Mr. Pedde is one of 

 your witnesses on a subsequent panel who is much more famiUar 

 with the details of that, but we did it to the tune of about 300,000 

 acre-feet this year, to provide water for some of those salmon flows. 

 We did about 237,000 acre-feet in 1991, not as much in 1992 be- 

 cause it was such a dry year. So, we have done a lot of that in 

 terms of working with the Bureau and the Idaho water users on 

 a voluntary basis, when there is surplus water available, to rent 

 that to provide flows. That is one aspect of the water interests that 

 we have. 



Another aspect is a little more structural and involves actually 

 testing the concept of acquiring water rights on particular prop- 

 erties that we could then use for salmon flows. We have such a pro- 

 posal with Skyland Farms, a ranch in Oregon that is in its final 

 stages and I hope will be signed in the next week or two. It is a 

 test concept for 2 years for us to lease that property and use the 

 water (which I think is about 50,000 acre-feet), and put that back 

 into the river. This involves both practical hurdles and institutional 

 hurdles in terms of how that works with Idaho water laws to see 

 if we can do something Uke that. And, if we can, I think that is 

 a promising concept. 



Both of these approaches are things that were suggested or re- 

 quired in the Council's plan, so they are part of our implementation 

 activities. But, I think that approach, provided we can get over 

 some of the institutional hurdles, has some considerable promise, 

 Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. DeFazio. Mr. LaRocco had a follow-up on that and then I 

 will have a follow-up follow-up. 



Mr. LaKocco. Yes, to the Administrator, last year a considerable 

 block of Idaho water was sent down the Snake to augment flows 

 for salmon. When this water reached the Coliimbia, BPA held the 

 water, and in the Colimibia the Idaho water was of no benefit to 

 salmon, in one of the worst migration years on record. But the 

 water was used to significantly benefit BPA's power generation ca- 

 pabiUty. Why did BPA hold the water Idaho released for salmon 

 flow augmentation when the water reached the Columbia? And I 

 think NMFS got afl:er you a Kttle bit on this. Is this one of those 

 commxinication problems? 



