discussion about the pros and cons of the Northcentral Power Study in the 

 Montana-Wyoming Aqueduct in Miles City. Mr. Gibbs was representing the 

 very agency that had designed this pumping plant, designed that 

 irrigation project--that's a Bureau of Reclamation Project--and what he was 

 advocating would put that project completely out of business, because he 

 was advocating allowing the Northcentral use of water in the event that we 

 would have had a lower stream flow than we had in 1961 and there's no 

 way that you could operate. 



If you're an irrigator and your irrigating the type of crop that we 

 raise down there, during July and August when your out of water for ten 

 days, well you might as well be out for ten years because your done for. 

 You've got to have that water and keep it going over your crops because 

 you can't shut off without it hurting yourself drastically. And there's not 

 too many people in that type of farming. I know I never was in the 

 financial position where I could have afforded to lose a total crop. It 

 would have broke me. Of course, I think being in the legislature has 

 damn near done that. But it was very critical. 



Now I haven't said anything about recreational use or fish and game 

 or wildlife habitat as far as stream flow because I think most of you people 

 are probably more aware of the need for that than I am. But the 

 agriculture people that's being led to believe, because of the instream flow 

 that was granted to the Fish and Game Department, that it's going to 

 adversely affect them, are being led down the wrong path. That's a 

 benefit to the existing water users. One thing that it could possibly do is 

 maybe hamper future water use permits, but whether or not you allow 

 agriculture to have future water use permits without the instream flow, 

 that instream flow is going to have to cease anyway when it gets down to 

 where you are affecting the prior user's right. Your not going to shut 

 the prior user off. That's not allowed. A lot of people have a 

 misconception of this, of their present rights. 



You're guaranteed under the '73 Water Use Act that first in time is 

 the first in right. And that will hold. I would a lot rather have a little 

 cushion of an instream flow than to be fighting some conglomerate that has 

 an office in Houston, Texas in New York City or in Salt Lake City. If I'm 

 going to be an agriculturalist irrigating on a stream in Montana, I think 

 it's a must that we have a certain amount of instream flow. Now one of 

 the arguments that we hear is that the reservation system of the '73 Water 

 Use Act and the instream flow reservations give our water to downstream 

 states. Now, what I'll challenge anybody to do is to come up with 

 something that ties up water for the state of Montana any better than the 

 reservation system does. If we don't have the reservation system and we 

 don't have the water reserve and they do develop it downstream, we're not 

 going to put this water all to use overnight if industry got all of it. It's 

 going to take time to develop it. 



Or if agriculture got all of it, we're not going to put it to use 

 overnight. We need a period of time to gradually develop because 

 irrigation systems cost money, the municipalities that reserve water are 

 gradually expanding. It'll take a period of time for them to develop to the 

 point where they'll need that. The irrigation districts are gradually 



