Water leasing proposed to aid trout
Conservationists say it would protect the fish, but others wary
Giving private entities the
ability to temporarily lease water rights to protect native trout would be
a "win-win situation for agriculture and sportsmen," a lawyer
for a conservation group told legislators.
But others waved cautionary flags this past week during the meeting of the Legislature's Water Issues Task Force.
Timothy Hawkes, lawyer for Trout Unlimited, outlined a bill the organization is proposing. It differs from one the task force discussed two weeks ago, which would let sewage treatment plants purchase rights to guarantee in-stream flows.
The Trout Unlimited measure is meant to be a temporary pilot project and would apply to private entities interested in leasing water rights for 10 years or less at a time. The change in rights would have to be approved by the director of the Division of Wildlife Resources and the state engineer.
All private water rights now authorized must be for use, not for the purpose of leaving water in the stream, according to state law.
But others waved cautionary flags this past week during the meeting of the Legislature's Water Issues Task Force.
Timothy Hawkes, lawyer for Trout Unlimited, outlined a bill the organization is proposing. It differs from one the task force discussed two weeks ago, which would let sewage treatment plants purchase rights to guarantee in-stream flows.
The Trout Unlimited measure is meant to be a temporary pilot project and would apply to private entities interested in leasing water rights for 10 years or less at a time. The change in rights would have to be approved by the director of the Division of Wildlife Resources and the state engineer.
All private water rights now authorized must be for use, not for the purpose of leaving water in the stream, according to state law.
Such new private
leases could be used only to protect or restore habitat for three native
trout species, all of them types of cutthroat trout, said Hawkes. The bill
would expire in 10 years, and could be reauthorized by the Legislature
then.
Presently, the only organizations that can acquire water rights for in-stream flows are state divisions: Wildlife Resources, which can do it to protect wildlife, and Parks and Recreation, whose interest is in water recreation such as boating.
Private acquisition of water rights for trout would be strictly voluntary on the part of the right's owner and could not harm other water rights, said Hawkes.
While the waters of the state are owned by the public, the right to use them is a form of private property, he said. The bill Trout Unlimited proposes "promotes principles of limited governance, free enterprise and private property rights," he said.
Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas, the task force co-chairman, wondered what would happen if a landowner leased water rights to Trout Unlimited, but 10 years later, when the lease expired, sold the rights to a developer for a lot of money. By then Trout Unlimited could have spent a great deal on habitat improvements.
"Is it not in vain?" Ure asked. "I see people playing games with this, I mean really playing games."
Hawkes said before it entered into a 10-year lease, Trout Unlimited would make sure that the deal was worthwhile. "If we make a bad deal, that's on us," he said.
Hawkes added that it was tough to see how this could be used as a water banking tool.
A representative of the Utah Water Coalition, former Sen. Fred Finlinson, said he worried about the bill being used in some sort of game. Ure added an example of what he thought might have been such a game: "Because they found one (rare) fish, one day" in a stream stretch in Echo Canyon, the state had to spend $1.5 million improving habitat.
In Ure's opinion, the fish was dumped there.
A representative of the environmentalist Utah Rivers Council supported the bill.
Randy Crozier, a member of the audience, said the stretches of stream involved should be clarified. "I personally have concerns with in-stream flow rights," he said.
He indicated that farmers and ranchers could find it more expensive to buy own water rights with environmental groups buying them too, "because once it's leased elsewhere it makes it hard to compete."
Rep. David N. Cox, R-Lehi, wondered, with Wildlife Resources able to obtain water rights to protect in-stream flows, "why do we need to do this?"
If a farmer or rancher wants to enter into an agreement with a private group interested in protecting trout habitat, why shouldn't that happen? Hawkes countered. Some people may not want to deal with the sate, and in some cases the state may not want to take up the burden of working out a deal.
The difference is that Trout Unlimited would be in control, in the driver's seat, Cox said.
Hawkes had said state approval would be needed for a private group to buy such rights. "What it allows us to do," he replied to Cox's comment, "is to be a player."
Presently, the only organizations that can acquire water rights for in-stream flows are state divisions: Wildlife Resources, which can do it to protect wildlife, and Parks and Recreation, whose interest is in water recreation such as boating.
Private acquisition of water rights for trout would be strictly voluntary on the part of the right's owner and could not harm other water rights, said Hawkes.
While the waters of the state are owned by the public, the right to use them is a form of private property, he said. The bill Trout Unlimited proposes "promotes principles of limited governance, free enterprise and private property rights," he said.
Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas, the task force co-chairman, wondered what would happen if a landowner leased water rights to Trout Unlimited, but 10 years later, when the lease expired, sold the rights to a developer for a lot of money. By then Trout Unlimited could have spent a great deal on habitat improvements.
"Is it not in vain?" Ure asked. "I see people playing games with this, I mean really playing games."
Hawkes said before it entered into a 10-year lease, Trout Unlimited would make sure that the deal was worthwhile. "If we make a bad deal, that's on us," he said.
Hawkes added that it was tough to see how this could be used as a water banking tool.
A representative of the Utah Water Coalition, former Sen. Fred Finlinson, said he worried about the bill being used in some sort of game. Ure added an example of what he thought might have been such a game: "Because they found one (rare) fish, one day" in a stream stretch in Echo Canyon, the state had to spend $1.5 million improving habitat.
In Ure's opinion, the fish was dumped there.
A representative of the environmentalist Utah Rivers Council supported the bill.
Randy Crozier, a member of the audience, said the stretches of stream involved should be clarified. "I personally have concerns with in-stream flow rights," he said.
He indicated that farmers and ranchers could find it more expensive to buy own water rights with environmental groups buying them too, "because once it's leased elsewhere it makes it hard to compete."
Rep. David N. Cox, R-Lehi, wondered, with Wildlife Resources able to obtain water rights to protect in-stream flows, "why do we need to do this?"
If a farmer or rancher wants to enter into an agreement with a private group interested in protecting trout habitat, why shouldn't that happen? Hawkes countered. Some people may not want to deal with the sate, and in some cases the state may not want to take up the burden of working out a deal.
The difference is that Trout Unlimited would be in control, in the driver's seat, Cox said.
Hawkes had said state approval would be needed for a private group to buy such rights. "What it allows us to do," he replied to Cox's comment, "is to be a player."
E-mail: bau@desnews.com