Jones recently came out on top in a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that mandated a trial be held to determine whether his irrigation practices are legal.

That trial will likely be held in the next several months in Pocatello's Federal District Court before Judge B. Lynn Winmill. It's the most recent chapter in an ongoing saga.

The Jones case dates back to 2000, when Laird Lucas and others filed suit against the Forest Service and the Joneses for diverting water from Otter Creek straight into a ditch with no fish screen.

"Unscreened diversions hurt fish," said Lucas, president of the Boise-based Advocates for the West and the man in charge of the case against Jones. "It's not rocket science.

"We're not saying stop all diversions. The point is, we've got to modernize."

But despite Lucas' words, many area ranchers see the case in a far different light - that is,

the extent to which the Endangered Species Act impacts their livelihood and how it facilitates potentially costly injunctions.

Lucas said the Forest Service has documented bull trout, an endangered species found only in pockets in the Northwest, in the creek for years and said the fish die when they leave the main channel. Jones maintains he's never seen one of the rare trout on his land.

In the decades-long struggle between ranchers and environmentalists, few things equal the Endangered Species Act in terms of igniting controversy.

"The Endangered Species Act, as far as I'm concerned, is unconstitutional," said State Rep. Lenore Barrett of Challis, an outspoken critic of environmental activism. "It's certainly very onerous in a resource-oriented area."

Barrett called the federal law "hypocritical," saying it effectively makes animals more important than people.

For years, critics like Barrett say, environmental groups have been able to shut down the operations of ranchers by alleging a threat to vanishing species.

But while the far-reaching incursions of the Endangered Species Act into ranching, irrigating and economic development have caused grumbling, the act also has become a vital conservation tool for environmental groups.

Lucas said four of the five ranchers originally targeted for violations of the act in Idaho have complied with the law and litigation has been dropped. But neither side seems to think the other is cooperative.

"We always said we can live with science, we just can't live with harassment," said Dave Nelson, who ranches near Mackay. "I think it's time we get some work done instead of these guys just coming in and claiming (harm)."

Nelson and many other area property owners have watched the Jones case unfold with piqued interest. They claim environmental groups have used the Endangered Species Act to put them out of business.

Lucas said he wasn't surprised this "test case" was sent back for a trial, but said ranchers need to stay up with the times and comply with federal laws.

"I don't view this as a big loss," he said. "We've got four experts who will testify this has been a problem and will be a problem."

Regardless of the outcome, some say it's time for a change in how the federal laws are enforced.

Nelson said an incentive-based program would likely encourage more ranchers to support the Endangered Species Act instead of vilifying it.

As for Barrett, she's hoping for an even larger overhaul.

"We've just got to get some common sense back in this stupidity," she said. "We can take care of ourselves if we're allowed to."

Dan Boyd covers politics, higher education and natural resource issues for the Journal. He can be reached at 239-3168 or by e-mail at dboyd@journalnet.com.