On August 2, U.S. Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a member of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he is concerned that protecting 42 miles of the Snake River between Jackson Lake Dam and the Palisades Reservoir would harm Idaho farmers by compromising their water rights.

But Monday, Mike Beus, Water Operations Manager for the Snake River area office of the Bureau of Reclamation in Burley, Idaho, said he believes those water rights would be protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Beus’ office controls storage and distribution of most of the major waterways in the Snake River drainage.

Further, Beus said the water rights would also be protected under the Snake River Compact of 1948 and the law that incorporated Jackson Lake into Grand Teton National Park in 1950.

“We don’t believe it would affect water rights,” said Beus of the pending legislation. “We took a look at the language before the Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne testified before the Senate subcommittee in favor of it. The status quo is protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. If the water right was not consistent with the scenic designation, the it (the Snake) would not qualify as a Scenic River.”

Shortly before his death, U.S. Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming introduced the Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2007. It would protect the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” of roughly 400 miles of water from threats like degradation of water quality and dam building.

Rivers and streams in the bill include the North, South and mainstream Buffalo Forks, Blackrock Creek, Pacific Creek, Granite Creek, Willow Creek, and segments of the Gros Ventre, Hoback, Lewis and Snake rivers.

U.S. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming has continued to promote the act.

Beus’ comments echo the legal opinion of Washington, D.C. attorney Bill Horn, who said the language of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, combined with applicable case law, “demonstrate clearly that enactment of the Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2007, as amended, will not adversely impact holders of existing water rights including those of downstream users.”

Craig spokesman Dan Whiting said that despite these assurances, the Idaho Senator still had problems with Thomas’ proposal. “He (Senator Craig) concedes that, technically, water rights could be protected in the legislative language,” said Whiting.

Whiting went on to say that Craig remains concerned about how the wild and scenic designation would affect the actual day-to-day management of that part of the river.

“Would it be different than it is now? And, if it’s not any different, what’s the need for wild and scenic designation?” he asked.

Further, Craig expressed concern about the “cost of litigation that would invariably ensue for people who want it managed differently.”

“Whether they have water rights or not, they could be tied up in the courts for a long time,” said Whiting. “If 42 miles, 10 percent of legislation, were removed from the bill, he’d be happy to sign on.”

Tom Patricelli, executive director of the Campaign for the Snake Headwaters, called Whiting to task for saying late last week that the 42 miles of the Snake River “doesn’t seem particularly wild and scenic.”

“It’s completely ridiculous and insulting to Wyoming,” said Patricelli. Maybe Mr. Whiting should come to the dedication of the Craig Thomas Visitors Center on the banks of the Snake River in Grand Teton National Park and tell the assembled crowd, the Wyoming Congressional Delegation and Vice-President Cheney what he thinks of the Snake.”

Patricelli said he still holds out hope that Craig will eventually support the act.

“Perhaps Larry Craig didn’t have all the facts in the beginning,” he said. “Now that the Bureau of Reclamation has stated unequivocally that neither water rights or the management of the water would be altered in any way…I hope that Senator Craig will work with the Wyoming delegation…”

Patricelli went on to point out that Horn is perhaps the most respected water rights lawyer in the country and that Idaho has 600 miles of its own wild and scenic rivers.

“It would be a political and practical impossibility to designate any river in the United States as wild and scenic if water rights could be affected,” Patricelli said. “Nobody would do it. There are more than 11,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers in the U.S. today.”

“The bill Senator Barrasso supports is the bill that Craig Thomas understood was best for the area,” Patricelli continued. “Senator Barrasso has been to our community. He knows of the overwhelming support here for this bill, and we’re grateful to him that he’s working so hard to get this done for Wyoming and to leave a worthy legacy for Craig Thomas.”

Barrasso spokesman Cameron Hardy said the protection of water rights is part of the history of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. “There hasn’t been, that I know of, any problems with water rights in 40 years,” Hardy said. “We’re talking about 11,000 miles of rivers in the United States. It doesn’t affect water rights.”

In addition to the other protections, Sen. Barrasso has offered to include language in the bill that would explicitly state that water rights would remain protected for Idaho, according to Hardy.

“The bill would come before the Energy Committee again and he (Senator Craig) will have another chance to voice his concerns,” Hardy said. “We have yet to see any evidence of the wild and scenic designation affecting water rights. I’m not sure what witness he would bring in.”

Hardy said that, if the bill attracts the expected strong support from Democrats, Thomas’ act should make it to the Senate floor sometime in September or October.