Hide Article Text (OCR)
AS OTHERS SEE ITWater Projects: When, If, How?The preliminary report on Idaho's water use plan being developed by the Idaho Water Resource Board appears to pose both ques-tfons as well as answers to water development.There are clams and there are dams. Because of an already riveted polari2ation. between irrigation and power utility interests on the one hand and environmental groups on the other, the differences have sometimes been lost in the fierce polemics of the past two years,The big difference is whether a project supplies needed .supplemental water for irrigation or whether it is principally keyed to developing new land—and, of course, in what scope. The Idaho farmer is just beginning to recognize Uie difference although ft is ol% nous in Monday night's hearing, held by the Idaho board in Idaho Falls that the difference is not AjUy appreciated as yet. The main point is that development of new land Immediately installs competition to the crops already pro-. duced by the existing farmers. Tliis kind of competition was most noticeable more recently In the huge tract3 of private land developed along the Snake river by ptimjvwater develop ment. The Swan Falls-Guffcy dam proposal is a. perfect example of pumped-up new land development tn a government project although (he huge Southwest Idaho project Is almost entirely in that category. Yet, at least until recently, in most parts of the state the irrigator, more in anger at the strange new anti-dam thinking of environmentalists, is blindly opting to any and all dams. Such an attitude does not serve the farmer nor Idaho—because we are talking about using government dollars in the main on public land projects to realize the dam's benefits.Salmon Falls, for example, can make an excellent case for supplemental water development. Tills newspaper has consistently felt -as well that the supplemental water phase of the Teton Dam project fills a beneficial use. They are largely supplemental water projects. In fact, in the face of the amazing private development on the ltexkurg bench, it will be difficult for the Bureau of Reclamation to make a case for providing project water to this area in the Teton dam's so-called second phase,tt would seem that in determining future dam projects, the essential factors to be weighed would revolve around demonstrated supplemental wafer need and power needs— and the alternatives to providing both where they are practical,Instead of rampant dam development, projects should be stretched out lt;o need. This, the water board's report does seek to do, in part. But the liistory of the water board — in Lis Swan Falls-Guffey push and its dam presumption in Hells Canyon-reflects an obvious bias to cam development. (Originally the board said it sought only Idaho’s sharing in dam benefits it a dam were inevitable, but later rejected a dam moratorium in Hell's Canyon.) This newspaper has not completed Its study of the preliminary water report and will not make assumptions on Hs merit.But the bias Is a natu ral one when one re. calls the rationale beldnd the board's erefw Hon by the legislature and the legislator fears of California water theft at that time.The development premise was built into the legislative mandate. In view of Ihls historical setting, some have wondered about the board's Interest In alternatives and non-development where public values appear to supercede a project-In factoring in new public water values which have really emerged since the board's formal creation.It Is true of course that 11 takes years to blueprint and to Instail a dam project. In tbe meantime, food needs can grow. However, population statistics have shown a surprising leveling out. One need only examine the drop in student enrollment toads in the state the past few years. Water development, it seems, should rest on when and if alternatives are practical or worth tliu extra subsidy to preserve natural values where the public may want to forego a- project. The forefeitore lias also to be considered in the light of dam costs, taxpayer burdens elsewhere as well as benefits in the project area. The evaluation has become an exasperating one in this kind of dichotomy.On the basis of information at the meeting, however, (he growth expectafions of the board's report may deserve further study, Efawever, it mus(:be remembered it is (he board's responsibility to profile expectations as well as recoin inundations. II is up to the public now to determine whether these represent Idaho's best interests in the long term.The Water Resource Board itself, as well as its mandate to draw up a water use report, grew out of the overtures in the Southwest ;obarrow” Idaho water. Despite environmental leaders dismiss at of this threat, tills news* paper is of the opinion that the threat is latent, The final settlement of the Mexican treaty can be the final dress rehearsal on whether some crazy engineer’s scheme, admittedly awesomely expensive, somehow gets the blesi ing of (he political decision makers who would obviously aut-number Idaho’s water defenders, rt may bo far-fetched now hut the question is still open.It does not follow, however, that Idaho has to opt for pellmell development to dam every drop so that it can demonstrate need. If (he urgency to transfer water is there, the multiplied resen’oirs would merely make it easier to pipe water away, in fact. Whether Idaho has applied its water hilly may not be relevant at that time. There is argument in tod lhai Idaho may finally be considered more valuable for iis natural values—as a national value in fact. The debate is a tenuous one.The newspaper does object to water hearings being held in lids area on election ev and election night, and later, in. the state's most populous center, Boise, on the eve of Thanksgiving. While the board does have to fill a mandate to get hearings completed by Christmas, one is left to wonder about the sincerity of its interest in public participation (n scheduling meetings on these kinds of nights and with such short notice—on the Friday on (he eve of the final weekend of public con. cent ration before the election,The Water Board’s presentation last Monday night reflected the thoroughness and the finish of the reporl. The presentation appeared to primarily lean to the premise of joining the state lo an ambitious dam devel. opment blueprint. Idahoans need la examine it— this newspaper plans a series of articles on the report-and to take the time to express themselves an It, - Idaho Falls Post Register.IDAHO STATE JOURNALPublished doily except Saturday and conbrw-mg with die Idaho Sunday Journal ever/ Sunday by Idaho Sfofe Journal, fac.. 305 South Arlhur.Pursuant to Chapter 54. 1933 Session lows of Idaho Friday is hereby designated as the day of week on which weekly legal notices will be published.Second class pesiage paid at Pocatello, Idaho83201, *Subscription rate bycorrier is $2.50 per monlh, by mail 3 mo,, $3.25, 6 mo. $\6.5G, 1 yr. $30.00. Ma if subscriptions must be paid in advance.
Newspaper Details
Idaho State Journal
Pocatello, Idaho, US
Tue, Nov 28, 1972
Page 2
Full Page
Clipped by
New M.
NM, USA 26 Nov 2019
Other Publications Near Pocatello, Idaho
The Semi Weekly Pocatello Tribune
The Weekly Pocatello Tribune
The Pocatello Post
The Pocatello Tribune
Idaho Journal
