development of the West. You'll probably hear some dry rhetoric but I 

 don't believe those are the real problems that fish and wildlife face in the 

 future development of western water resources. We should be aware of 

 those things, but I don't believe they are the real problem. Resource 

 needs versus development needs also brings to mind methods for securing 

 water for fish, wildlife and intrinsic values. Such things as instream flow 

 legislation, fish and wildlife coordination acts, state environmental policy 

 acts, statewide water plans. These are all good programs and they could 

 logically be mentioned as methods for gaining some water for fish and 

 wildlife in the future. Most of them do provide benefits to the resource 

 and should continue. But unfortunately, the direction we've been going 

 recently is a piecemeal fashion. We're really just effective in gaining a 

 few of these scraps from the water that is left over in the West. There 

 are exceptions and there are some real noticable exceptions here in 

 Montana. There are some things that people can be proud of in securing 

 some water for fish and wildlife resources. But generally, the fish and 

 wildlife resource is only considered when the needs are not going to 

 conflict with those of development. The real problem as I see it, is that 

 the general public has little input and receives little consideration in the 

 allocation of western water, which is a public-owned resource. In most 

 western states, perhaps all western states, water is the only resource 

 which passes into private ownership with no reimbursement to the public 

 and often to the detriment of public interest. Now I stole that from 

 several people and let me repeat it. The general public has little input 

 and receives little consideration in the allocation of western water, which 

 is a public owned resource. In most states, water is the only natural 

 resource which passes into private ownership with no reimbursement to the 

 public and often to the detriment of public interest. Well the source of 

 this problem is fairly easy to recognize. 



You look back at the early settlement of the West and all there was 

 for water laws was a system to provide for the orderly allocation of water 

 to people who needed if basically for irrigation. They needed a system so 

 people could file on rights and protect those rights from junior users. 

 This is the same system we are in right now in a large part. And I guess 

 we don't really need to point out that things have changed a little bit in 

 the last 100 years. We've got water uses now that weren't even dreamed 

 of when these water laws were devised. But the same laws are in effect. 

 We've got coal slurry pipeline. We have industry, municipalities, 100,000 

 people in cities here in Montana. And we've got fish and wildlife needing 

 water. Things that weren't even realized. Things that were taken for 

 granted back when these laws were devised. I think we need to recognize 

 now that the laws are slow in changing. Now organization money operates 

 pretty effectively in finding water for industry and energy development, 

 it may take a few years and it may take a few million dollars, but they 

 can find the water. The general public's needs for water have not been 

 articulated so well and this gives rise to the current situation. Most of 

 the water is already appropriated for municipalities, agriculture and 

 industry. And future allocations are still going the same way with a few 

 minor exceptions. Now true, there are some considerations for fish, 

 wildlife and recreation and intrinsic values of natural waterways in most 



