a sq)arate one for the Clark Fork? On the other hand, that legislation was moving at the 

 same time as the private party proposal, so the result isn't unexpected. Also, why should 

 there be a FWP program, when they could maybe go through the private party program? 

 Free-market approaches are a good idea. Ramifications of leasing is still a concern. 



There really ought to be more proactive use of the FWP instream flow leasing "tool". 



The lessors involved in the FWP leasing program would be some good people to talk to 

 about their experiences with the program. 



I'd like to look at the final report before taking a position on any legislative proposals. 



I'd be happy to bring these questions to our Board at their August meeting and let you 

 know what they say. 



It takes time to build the credibility factor that is needed to implement this program. 

 More time may allow FWP to do more. The FWP program (in comparison to the others) 

 has money tied to it; the enviromnental groups want to see money committed to the 

 program. 



I have a general concern about government involvement in general; fi-ee enterprise is 

 good. 



It could be dangerous to change HB472 (the private party leasing statute) now; there was 

 lots of talk about seeing how it works. 



I'd suggest the EQC or Consensus Council get the members of the Instream Flow 

 Working Group back together, with FWP, to discuss these questions. They could discuss 

 whether the 3 programs could be combined. 



It's really no big deal that there are 3 different programs. The Clark Fork is a special one; 

 they worked on that for a long time. These are changing times; we need to be careful. 



I don't have any other comments, but I'll call you if I think of any. 



04 



