There are likely potential improvements, but I'm not sure what they would be. The 

 process seems slow and cumbersome, but that was intended ~ to be careful. 



Should the FWP Instream Flow Leasing Program be Continued? 



All said yes. One said it was a good complement to the private party leasing program. Another 

 stated he "strongly" supported continuing the program. 



How about Other Potential Legislative Changes? 



There were no specific suggestions for changes (when asked as an open-ended question), so two 

 proposals that had been discussed by Subcommittee members were proposed to them. 



a. Make it Permanent? 



• A sunset is better, imtil there's enough information on the potential ramifications of 

 removing water fi-om the land. I'd suggest a 10- to 15-year sunset, with a focus on 

 analyzing the ramifications. 



• I favor permanency. There should be no problem taking off the svmset. Or, the two 

 (FWP and private party) could sunset at the same time. 



Two other respondents stated they favored making the statute permanent (i.e. take off the sunset 

 clause altogether). 



b. Remove the "cap" on the number of streams that can be leased from? 



• Yes, as long as safeguards (e.g. the change of use process, with notification and 

 opportunities to object) are left in place. 



• I strongly suggest removing the cap. If there's 100 streams, it shouldn't matter. 

 Two other interviewees just said "yes" to removing the cjqj. 



Other Comments (i.e. instream flow leasing in general, the other programs, etc.) 



• - I would expect some effort to try to extend the program; there's no tangible reason not to. 

 It was set up with a sunset, so it would be assessed as to how it's working; specifically, if 

 water is removed fi-om the land (e.g. by converting to sprinkler irrigation and leasing the 

 savings), what are the ramifications, say, on return flows? The implementation part needs 

 to be studied. 



It seems sort of a crazy idea to have three different instream programs. Like why is there 



C-3 



