But so far Craig has strenuously opposed the measure, even though the reason for his sole objection has been refuted by everyone associated with the bill. He owes Wyoming an explanation.

The bill was introduced by the late Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, his final effort on Wyoming’s behalf in a long Senate career. Passage of the bill is generally seen in Washington and Wyoming as a way to pay tribute to Thomas, a member of Craig’s own party.

Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the measure would protect the “outstandingly remarkable values” of nearly 400 miles of Wyoming rivers from dam building and the degradation of water quality.

When Thomas introduced his bill in May, he proudly noted, “Wyoming is home of some of the cleanest free-flowing rivers in the nation.”

Thomas’ bill would add 21 segments along 14 rivers and streams in Wyoming to the wild and scenic system. It would preserve access and allow fishing and rafting on the designated waters.

Supporters told a Senate subcommittee that the bill would help Wyoming wildlife and sportsmen and boost tourism dollars in the state. Officials with the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service testified in favor of the wild and scenic designation on federal lands.

Right now, the only Wyoming waterway protected under the act is 20 miles of the Clark’s Fork of the Yellowstone River near Cody. Craig’s home state, meanwhile, has more than 600 miles of rivers with such protection.

Even though Craig has seen how well the wild and scenic designation works for Idaho businesses and irrigators, he opposes a bill that would offer the same benefits to Wyoming.

Why? Craig maintains the designation of 42 miles of the Snake River between Jackson Lake Dam and Palisades Reservoir would harm water rights held by Idaho farmers.

Sen. John Barrasso, who was appointed to replace Thomas until the 2008 general election, noted the bill wouldn’t affect any existing property rights and uses, or water rights on the river. Still, he’s willing to add language that specifies Idaho’s rights would be unchanged – just as Thomas had agreed to do before his death.

That’s not good enough for Craig. He stubbornly insists those 42 miles of the Snake be removed from the bill.

As noted by Tom Patricelli, executive director of the Campaign for the Snake Headwaters, it’s difficult to have a Snake Headwaters Legacy Act without the Snake River in it.

Perhaps Craig is just trying to show his constituents how willing he is to stand up for their water rights. That may be an understandable desire for a politician, but it’s no excuse for obstructing good legislation. There is nothing in the bill that would hurt Idaho farmers, and the Senator should end his opposition.