585 



I think the advantages, the point in time that we now find our- 

 selves in, is that there is a known program. So I think we have the 

 ability to make a fairly general at least projection of costs oyer the 

 next number of years. But the Council is much more expert in that 

 issue than I am. 



Mr. DeFazio. Well, what do you know about the agreement with 

 Montana and the 60-year hold-harmless agreement? Are you famil- 

 iar with that? 



Ms. Garrison. Nothing. 



Mr. DeFazio. That is a candid answer, thank you. 



Ms. Garrison. I think the real issue is setting up a process that 

 makes sure that we keep programs that are working. I think it is 

 perfectly appropriate to get rid of programs that are not working. 

 But the issue of how we define results and objectives is something 

 that the Coimcil has to be involved in, and the fish and wildlife 

 agencies have to be involved in, because of the fi*equency in the 

 past of Bonneville and other agencies using the lack of hard data 

 or using the science as an excuse for not doing things. 



Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. 



Mr. Chapman, she made a suggestion regarding dry year leasing. 

 Is that something that some of your members or associates would 

 be interested in? 



Mr. Chapman. Specifically I am not sure whether they would be 

 interested in it, but we have never seen a specific proposal on how 

 the mechanism of dry year leasing would work. We have invited 

 Ms. Garrison and Zach Willey and others to talk to various meet- 

 ings of ours regarding this issue, but until we have specific propos- 

 als on how it would work and what it would do to us and for us, 

 I am not sure that they woxild support it or not support it, but they 

 are interested in at least looking at the proposal and making a de- 

 cision on it, yes. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. She raises a point in her testimony, which 

 seems an impediment to willing sellers or lessors of water, which — 

 and I cannot speak to this, I am not an attorney and certainly do 

 not know anything about Idaho water law — but it says "A senior 

 rights holder who rents water for downstream fish purposes for a 

 year becomes subject to Water Bank Rule 3.6, which accords that 

 farmer lowest priority for reservoir space the next year." Why 

 would that be, because the assumption is the person did not need 

 the water, so why should they continue to have priority in the next 

 water year? 



Mr. Chapman. That is what we refer to in Idaho as the last-to- 

 fill rule, and it was one that was adopted by the water banks, in 

 Idaho we have three, and also by our Idaho Water Resource Board, 

 which is our constitutionally established water planning entity. 

 What it says is that if you rent your water out of basin — in this 

 case out of the particular drainage that you reside in — then you be- 

 come subject to the last-to-fill rule because it is storage water that 

 is being rented. 



The reason for that is that conceivably you could have an individ- 

 ual with a very early priority storage right rent his water out of 

 basin every year with virtual guarantee of refill to the detriment 

 of the more junior water users. That water is supposed to be used 

 for irrigation and the storage that is made up. So rather than hav- 



