The 240 cubic feet of water that flows every second through the Boise River today rolls over rocks, fills holes for resting trout and creates the scenic ribbon that ties the Treasure Valley together.
But if a coalition of irrigation districts and canal companies wins a court battle, the winter flows of this river could drop to a trickle of only 9 cfs below Lucky Peak Dam.
That would eliminate most of the habitat for the Boise River's wild trout, waterfowl and eagles. Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials would have nowhere to put the hatchery trout and steelhead that make the Boise the top urban fishery in the state.
County officials couldn't produce enough electricity at Barber Dam to maintain the aging structure. Boise would have to invest more than $1 million to upgrade its wastewater treatment plants that use the flows to dilute some of the pollution.
Worst of all, a dry river would take away one of Boise's best scenic and economic assets that helps attract and keep new businesses.
"Imagine a Roady's Humanitarian Bowl where the camera pans on a dry Boise River," said John Freemuth, a political scientist at Boise State University. "It would create a backlash that will hasten the decline in power of traditional water users."
Irrigation officials say they don't want to dry up the river, but they worry that the spread of subdivisions into the Foothills and the desert means farmers will run out of water for irrigation if they don't do something.
"There's no way we can keep building and building and building without some thought process about where our water is going to come from," said Paul Deveau, manager of the Boise Project Board of Control.
But not all irrigation companies support the lawsuit. Of the 15 that first protested the Bureau of Reclamation's right to the water stored in Lucky Peak for streamflow maintenance, seven have since dropped out.
"From our company's viewpoint, drying up the river is not in the interest of our shareholders, so it was a no-brainer to get out of that suit," said Barry Eschen, a board member for the South Boise Water Co. "Most of our shareholders are like most people in the Valley. We want to see that water in the river."
Attorneys for the irrigators have suggested that if they win, they could lease the water to maintain a minimum stream flow in the Boise. But Ada County Commissioner Paul Woods said he doubts voters would be happy about paying for the water they see as a public resource.
This case has brought one of rural Idaho's most hotly disputed issues to the state's urban center.
Gov. Butch Otter started a program this year to pay taxpayer dollars to dry up farms to help resolve an irrigation dispute in eastern Idaho. Drying up the Boise River or asking residents to pay to keep it flowing could prompt questions over tax breaks and spending for farmers, Woods said.
"I just hope the debate doesn't get so polarized it pits the urban versus the rural community," he said.
Attorneys for the remaining districts will meet with lawyers for the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the state and Boise and Ada counties for a settlement conference Dec. 4. If they can't reach an agreement, a state judge will decide whether the federal government's claim to the water is valid, as is recommended by the Idaho Department of Water Resources.
As in all water cases, the issues are complex.
Irrigators say the federal government promised them supplemental water to make up for water they lost to flood control when Lucky Peak was built. But the bureau, in its legal briefs, said it has delivered all the water it promised and more, scrupulously following state laws.
But state law doesn't allow any agency except the Idaho Department of Water Resources to own the rights to minimum stream flows. Still, the 1963 federal permit for building Lucky Peak included a requirement that storage water be used to maintain stream flows in the Boise for fish habitat, long before the minimum stream flow law was written.
When a Mountain Home irrigation project was dropped, the water stored in Lucky Peak to meet its needs was transferred to streamflow maintenance in 1984, again with the approval of the Idaho Water Resource Board. Twice since then, some of the water was temporarily transferred for use by irrigation districts during times of drought.
The bureau argues that if the irrigation companies win, that could mean the federal agency only has a permit to fill Lucky Peak halfway, since it could not simply transfer the water for irrigation use.
The water never has been owned by the irrigation districts, said Kevin Lewis of Idaho Rivers United. He calls the lawsuit a "water grab."
"They are asking to take over somebody else's water right," Lewis said. "How loud do they scream when someone threatens to take their water right?"
Rocky Barker: 377-6484
