586 



ing the junior water right holders or storage right holders penal- 

 ized because of this continual renting out of basin by a more senior 

 water right, they have adopted this last-to-fill rule to protect the 

 agricultural integrity of the area. 



Mr. DeFazio. Well I understand that for general purposes, but 

 we are dealing here with the potential that we could end up under 

 a judge's mandate, which under federal law would usurp a whole 

 series of Idaho laws, Oregon laws, Washington laws and others, re- 

 quiring for salmon recovery. And it just seems to me in this case 

 that a farmer who is willing to do this in order to reach the goals 

 of a plan which we can defend in court — ^if we follow the Council's 

 plan, I am of the conviction that we are not going to find the sys- 

 tem under an injimction and have a judge running it. I do not 

 know what the recovery plan is going to say, maybe it will be dif- 

 ferent, but just assume that the recovery plan is similar to the 

 Council's plan. If we fiilly implement that, we have got a great de- 

 fense in court. The reason all my forests are \mder an injunction 

 is because the Forest Service did not follow a plan and did not de- 

 velop a credible plan. So it is key. 



So if part of accompUshing that would require, you know, some 

 increased flows and part of the contribution could come fi'om some 

 leases, I would hope that the authorities here would revisit that 

 and think, well gee, if that person is actually leasing the water for 

 those purposes, then boy, they are really saving the rest of us fi'om 

 something potentially catastrophic. It has a bigger benefit for all 

 the irrigation users. It is a different situation than someone profit- 

 ing and saying I am not going to farm any more, hell I am just 

 going to sell the water, you know, downstream to whoever. I mean 

 it is a really different situation. 



Mr. Chapman. I understand what you are saying and I am cer- 

 tain that if we got to that point, it would be revisited. All I can 

 tell you at this point is that that proposal was made to the water 

 users and to the Water Resource Board last year and all categori- 

 cally rejected it at this time. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. 



Mr. Stegner, I am confiised by your testimony, quite fi*ankly. I 

 am not fi-om Idaho, so I do not imderstand the politics over here. 

 But I find it difficult to believe that your State government, for 

 whatever reason, has adopted a position to stick it to part of the 

 State when there is a viable alternative available which would not 

 stick it to any of your State, which would be transportation. That 

 is what you said, you said the solution is transportation, flows are 

 not the solution, and this is all basically a plot and everyone has 

 been stampeded by your government, which somehow has it in for 

 your part of the State. 



Now I could understand if some part of the State has to get 

 screwed, and well, these are the people we do not like, so we are 

 going to do it to them. But in this case, what you are telling me 

 here is a solution which would resolve the situation, which would 

 not stick it to anybody in your State at all, it would stick it to the 

 ratepayers throughout the region. Now why is it that the State of 

 Idaho has it in so bad for you that it is willmg to hurt its own econ- 

 omy to get at you? It does not make any sense — it just does not 

 make any sense to me. 



