502 



river either. So we have got to work together in order to come up 

 with something that is viable for all of us and that everybody can 

 be made whole and we can still recover the fish. We think that is 

 reasonable and we think it is equitable. We have all shared in the 

 decline of the fish, we ought to all share in the recovery. 



In referring to the amount of water that Idaho has contributed, 

 I notice that there is about 10 million acre-feet committed out of 

 the Columbia this past year. The runoff in the Snake River basin 

 is much less of course, about a quarter of that, of the Columbia. 

 But in 1991, we stepped up and we contributed 850,000 acre-feet 

 of water downstream; in 1992, 1,747,000; and in 1993, 1,635,000 to 

 date. Of that, 932,000 acre-feet was shaped by Idaho Power Com- 

 pany out of their Hells Canyon complex. And so we are making a 

 strong effort on a voluntary basis to do our part. But we are dis- 

 appointed that efforts seem to be becoming stalemated down- 

 stream. 



Your questions that were in the letter of invitation asked about 

 conservation and where we ought to go with conservation. The av- 

 erage annual runoflf out of the Snake River basin in Lewiston is 

 about 36 million acre-feet, and contrary to popular belief, all of the 

 conservation in the world wiU not increase that flow 1 acre-foot. 

 There will still be 36 million acre-feet of water coming out of the 

 Snake River basin. The only way that you can change that is to 

 take agricultural land out of production and eliminate the use of 

 the water. That is the only way you are going to get an additional 

 acre-foot. 



Now there are those that would assume or would suggest that 

 somehow we can initiate major conservation measures throughout 

 the upper Snake River basin and obtain much water. The U.S. Geo- 

 logic^ Survey data show that there is about 1.1 milhon acres of 

 flood-irrigated land in Idaho, and the diversion rate for that flood- 

 irrigated land is about 7 acre-feet per acre. The consumptive use 

 of those crops range somewhere in the neighborhood of about 2-2V2 

 acre-feet per acre and you add in some irrigation efficiencies and 

 people will automatically assume that somehow there is ^V2 acre- 

 feet of water out there that is somehow magically going to appear 

 if we have conservation throughout the Snake plain. What they ig- 

 nore is the other Geological Survey data that says that 75 percent 

 of the water diverted returns to the hydrologic system, either as re- 

 charge to the ground water system or as return flow to the Snake 

 River. So it is already in the system, it is already going down- 

 stream. 



The issue of conservation is one that we support on a local and 

 a site-specific basis. Conservation can be used to fine-time our irri- 

 gation community and to provide some additional water, but the 

 kinds of acre-feet or the numbers of acre-feet that are being pro- 

 posed to be obtained fi'om Idaho are way out of line. Even if that 

 water could be obtained, even if the Power Planning Council could 

 obtain the million acre-feet of water that they hope to obtain some- 

 how in Idaho, the physical constraints of the system eliminate the 

 use of that from any practical use for salmon. For example, the 

 river down to Twin Falls in Idaho, about midway through the 

 State, is full during the time that the salmon need it for their mi- 

 gration. If you put additional water on top of that, you begin flood- 



