process is another tool to allow for cooperative improvements which make the small amount of water 

 available in Montana go further for more uses. Currently there is a relative truce between the 

 conservation community and agriculture over water use in the state. Mr. Farling's goal is to make this 

 truce a permanent situation. 



Clark Fork Basin Leasing Pilot Program 



Ms. Holly Franz, a member of the Clark Fork Basin Steering Committee, presented the Clark Fork 

 Basin Leasing Pilot Program to the Council. Ms. Franz provided a brief history leading up to the 

 present program. 



■ • i 



In 1991, the Legislature set up a committee charged with drafting a management report for the upper 

 Clark Fork. The committee was comprised of a variety of interests, of which Ms. Franz represented 

 the Montana Power Company. Instream flow was one ofthe main interests of the committee. They 

 started working with the ranchers in the area as their first priority, and provided for extensive public 

 comment and hearings. Many ofthe ideas brought forth at these hearings became incorporated into the 

 private party leasing program. 



Ms. Franz presented a comparison ofthe three water leasing programs in the state (see attached). Ms. 

 Franz indicated that one ofthe most important differences between the Clark Fork Program and the 

 private party program is the Clark Fork's inclusion of public agencies as potential lessees. The private 

 party program does not include public agencies in its leasing programs, and instead defines potential 

 lessees as private individuals, private corporations or private partnerships. Another interesting 

 component of this program is the conversion of water rights to instream flow. Ms. Franz suggested 

 this to be the trend for the fiiture. Ranchers, industry and other municipalities who have water rights 

 which are in transition in their water use will use this program as a tool to ensure those water rights are 

 not abandoned. The one lease which has been established under the Clark Fork program, with the 

 Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, involves such a conversion of water rights. 



Ms. Franz highlighted one last difference in the Clark Fork Program: the prevailing party in the DNRC 

 proceedings is allowed attorneys fees, 



Ms. Franz mentioned that two studies are currently imderway to research return flow; in the Flint Creek 

 Basin, and in the Big Hole Basin. Return flow studies relate to the provision made by both the 

 statewide and Clark Fork Program to only leave instream the water which would historically be 

 consumed by evaporation or plant transpiration. 



Council Discussion 



The Coimcil discussed (as did the Subcommittee the preceding day) the role of irrigation return flows 

 can play in providing late-season instream flows. And the concern that not every location or operation 

 is appropriate for conversion fi-om flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation. 



The Council requested Mr. Farling provide a copy ofthe checklist which shows the critical path that 

 needs to be followed when pursuing a water lease (see attached). 



B-3 



