Star-Tribune Editorial Board

An Idaho group says its opposition to designating the Snake River headwaters as "wild and scenic" is because such action may affect water rights in the eastern part of that state.

Apparently, no one in the group has actually read the Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2008. The legislation clearly states that nothing in the bill "affects valid existing rights, including water rights in the states of Idaho and Wyoming."

What more assurance does the Idaho Water Users Association want? And why do its members want to deny a Wyoming river the same federal protection that 574 miles of Idaho rivers now have?

Of the more than 11,000 miles of river that are part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, only 20 miles are in Wyoming.

But last week the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill, named after Wyoming's late senator, who proposed the legislation now sponsored by his successor, Sen. John Barrasso. The wild and scenic designation would apply to 387 miles of the Snake River system.

The special designation protects water quality and the free-flowing nature of a river, while allowing activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, boating, ATV use and livestock grazing. The bill would help Wyoming's tourism industry by giving local communities an additional opportunity to market the river.

The Idaho water users group is primarily concerned about the 42-mile stretch of the Snake River below Jackson Lake Dam. Irrigators in Idaho hold the rights to about 96 percent of the water in Jackson Lake.

Despite the fact that the protection of all existing water rights is spelled out in the bill, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, tried to use that excuse in his attempt to amend the bill last week. Fortunately, Barrasso quickly saw through his ploy and kept the legislation intact.

Craig tried to add language that said no flow requirement of any kind shall be imposed on the water of any segment of the Snake below Jackson Lake Dam. He claimed it would "slightly" change river management. But his amendment would have taken away the ability of the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service to manage the river.

Barrasso correctly noted that downstream users must be protected, but they do not have the ability to regulate flow. He exposed Craig's move for what it was: a blatant attempt to expand the power of the downstream users so that they get more than standard protection of the water rights.

As debate on the bill now moves to the full Senate, expect to see Idaho groups lobby against it. But don't be fooled by their arguments. Our western neighbors unmistakably know that their water rights won't be affected, and Craig knows that it's wrong to change the river's management in Wyoming on behalf of water users on the other side of the border. But that doesn't mean he won't try again.