Water Policy Subcommittee 



Survey of Lessors 



Page 3 



o ■ I am not sure that FWP is monitoring to ensure that they are getting the 

 [instream] flow. Money should be appropriated for monitoring. 



Two people suggested that FWP consider leasing water with later (junior) priority dates or "high 

 water" rights: 



o Would like to see FWP lease high water rights fi>r a minimal amount. The 



landowners want to protect these rights. If they lease them to FWP they can say 

 the water rights are being used. FWP says it requires too much paperwork They 

 want the District /Mill Creek Water District] to lease these water rights in one 

 chunk. 



o FWP is only interested in early priority dates but water rights with later [junior] 



priority dates would be useful. For example ,in our situation they could ask 

 someone with a later priority date (1963) to shut off on July 15. It [streamflow] is 

 usually critical in August. 



Other comments and suggestions: 



o Extend the term of the lease. The investments made by FWP [in structures] are 50 



year investments. 



o More cooperation from FWP. They should let us know how they feel it is going. We have 



to call and ask them. 



o Follow through to ensure that what we paid for is what we get in terms of 



instreamflow. 



O . It works well now. 



o None. It is a very good program. 



What do you think about the process for determining the value of the water? 



As noted above, two people raised this issue in response to the previous question. Consequently, 

 this question was posed to all remaining respondents. 



o • We need a real value for the water. I'm not sure they [FWP] are getting their 



money 's worth on the [lease on Mol Herron Creek]. // looks like "we have money 

 to spend so we will spend it." ,.'.■ v 



€-8 



