agriculturists that the wildlife agencies or sportsmen groups or water 

 agencies, whoever is responsible for obtaining water reservations or 

 instre'am flows, are trying to tie up all the water in the state. This isn't 

 the ^se. There are objective methods available to determine just how 

 much water is needed to maintain those instream values and it should be 

 legally required that that information is gathered and then when that's 

 required there should be the funding and manpower provided to get it. A 

 lot of these states have been hit with these... not hit... they probably 

 gladly accepted the instream flow legislation. But at the same time, we 

 don't have the money or the manpower to put those laws into effect. That 

 should be provided. Another thing that I think we should recognize right 

 now is that one of the big problems in western water allocation is the 

 illegal over-diversion of water. A lot of the opposition you hear talking 

 about instream flow legislation or state water plans is that we are 

 over-diverting water and if you get instream flow legislation through, it's 

 going to require closer monitoring of our diversion systems and we're 

 going to lose this water we're taking. I don't think that's a valid 

 argument. I think there's going to be tighter control of water use in the 

 West anyway, with or without instream flow legislation or water 

 reservations. It's going to be demanded by agriculture or by the industry 

 or the other water users if not by the instream flow interests, so that 

 tighter monitoring is coming and it should be there anyway. I just get 

 frustrated being put in the position where I have to apoligize to people 

 when we suggest legislation to give the public a little bit of input on how 

 their own water is distributed so they might reserve some water for their 

 benefit and you have to apologize because that legislation might actually 

 interfer with sombody's illegal use of water. And that's one of the biggest 

 oppositions. Well, Okay. 



Another thing is that we should provide it objectively for other 

 legitimate uses and I get carried away on the wildlife standpoint because I 

 feel wildlife and public interest in general really have been left out of this 

 water picture. But at the same time, realistically and quite logically, an 

 overall water plan has to objectively provide for industry, municipalities 

 and agriculture in the future. But I believe these can be met without 

 sacrificing our wildlife and recreational resources, but it's going to require 

 comprehensive, long-range planning. I can't stress enough that we've got 

 to get the people excited if anything is going to change. There are 

 things that can be done if the people ask for them. They can become 

 accepted practice. A few examples. There's alternative sites for mines, 

 for power plants, for timber sales, for reservoirs, for roads, utility 

 corridors. Those sites with the least impact on wildlife populations and 

 those that take the water at the most downstream locations--possibly in 

 another state--are the ones that should be chosen. Many developments 

 require they impound their diversion of water. Terrestrial and aquatic 

 wildlife habitat can be enhanced by incorporating guaranteed stream flows 

 into all these water projects and not just the minimum. It's the public 

 money that's usually building the thing anyway. Why is that the third or 

 fourth priority? The public interests. Good instream flow legislations can 

 be obtained. Montana has made a lot of progress. I think Colorado has 

 one of the model bills in the country right now. Bills that agriculture, 

 industry and the general public can live with and work with. We're still 

 working in Wyoming. Hopefully we'll get there. Money can be made 



