< Water Policy Subcommittee 



Survey of Lessors 

 Pages 



None of the lessors felt that the program should be allowed to expire. All seven of them thought 

 that the program should be extended. Five thought that it should be extended permanently. One 

 of them was not sure whether or not it should be extended temporarily or permanently. One 

 stated that it should be extended for at least ten years. Specific comments are provided below: 



o Sooner or later the same problems will come back [if the program is not 



extended.] You will face the "use it or lose it" issue. Want to protect the instream 

 flow without giving water users an incentive to use water just to protect the water 

 right. 



o It benefits fisheries and encourages irrigators to improve the use of water through 



sprinklers. The money has helped our whole program wort 



O It is very instrumental in keeping the streambed wet. 



o // would be very shori-sighted to let that expire. I have never understood why 



there were problems [controversy suiroimding the program] because it is 

 completely voluntary. It has the potential to save creeks. 



O // should be extended permanently, because if you run up against a deadline there 



is an incentive [for FWPy to throw out dollars without evaluating the value of the 

 benefits received. 



Under the current law leasing is only allowed on 20 stream reaches designated by the 

 DNRC. Do you feel that leasing should be: 



Limited to 20 stream reaches? (0) 



Limited to a specific number of stream reaches? (0) 



Allowed on any stream reaches as long as the proposed lease meets the other 

 requirements of the law? (3) 



Other? (4, see below) 



O Allowed on any streams that have a tendency to be dewatered. 



O Need to weigh the costs and benefits. FWP could designate stream 



reaches. There are pros and cons to this. 

 o Can 't see why it could not be done on a bigger scale. 



O Any stream with threatened or endangered species. 



C-10 



