More Idaho matters now. From the studios of Boise State Public Radio News, I'm Jemma Cadet. Former President Donald Trump has a plan to bring water to thirsty parts of the West by apparently turning on a big faucet. Rocky Barker, who covered environmental issues for the Idaho Statesman for decades, who now publishes his blog, Letters from the West, recently wrote an article about this. You can find Rocky at RockyBarker.com if you want to read the article in-depth. And Rocky is joining us now to talk more about this. Rocky, really nice to have you back on the program. Good to be here, Jemma. So Rocky, first off, let's talk about the fact that there is a real need for more water in parts of the West, in particular those southern areas, California, Arizona, Nevada. And this has been an ongoing issue. So talk to us really about this issue. Well, first, let's let's start with where former President Trump said to get the water. He said to get the water from this big giant faucet. Well, we call that faucet the Columbia River. So, you know, and actually, you know, he didn't get that out of his mind. There are people in California, in particular, who've been looking north to our water in this watershed, you know, for decades. So the whole idea that somehow that we would take this water, put it in a big giant aqueduct, and run it down south to meet their needs. The problem is, is that we, in this region, it's overallocated. We all need that water. He was looking at it as Canada, because that's where the Columbia River starts. He really didn't recognize what has been going on as this debate over, you know, using water from the Pacific Northwest down in California for all this time. And actually, when people have looked in the path, where do we take this water? They've actually looked to Idaho. So with that said, Rocky, talk about that a little bit more, because this idea really goes back to the, what, early 1990s, in fact. And because there was a point where then Governor, then Idaho Governor Cecil Andres, he appointed a bipartisan committee, right, or panel, to really fight this idea to try to take water from Idaho, because the Snake River isn't a tributary of the Columbia River. Right. So Los Angeles County, one of their commissioners proposed that they study getting water from up here, and it was passed unanimously. So Governor Andres and me talking with Governor Evans, a Republican over in Washington, they both said, we got to do something about this. And so Andres appointed this committee, and they looked at what some of the things they were looking at. Well, the way that California at that time was looking at getting the water was they were going to divert it out of the Hagerman area, out of the Snake River, then run the pipes up over Jackpot, and they'd get it up there, I don't know, about 6,000 feet. And then it's all downhill from there. So their whole idea from a California standpoint is, we can pay for this with the hydro power that's going to be produced when we once we get that water up high and going downhill, it finally died because even that would be extremely expensive. And the thing is, is that they need that water even more today than they did in the early 90s. And so the cost of some of these ideas might start to pencil out. How then, if something like this were to be put in place, would it impact Idaho, where the water would potentially be coming from? Because we have experienced drought. This is, it's not like we're always in an abundance or overabundance of water in our rivers and streams here in Idaho. That's right. The thing about water, we don't think about it like a commodity, but it's pretty darn valuable. It is a commodity. It's like today's oil, in the world. And in fact, in Idaho, we've got about, I can't tell you how much, maybe a half a million acre feet of water that we run downstream, they say to help salmon, but it also produces power. And the people who pay for it is the Bonneville Power Administration. So when they were thinking about this, you know, 30 years ago, they were saying, gee, we've got this surplus of water that they're running downstream. We'll just take and run it to California. Well, of course, that water is running downstream to help salmon migrate. And so there's somebody who always wants it. And right now, in Idaho, we've been having this water dispute between the groundwater users and the surface users that has gotten fairly, fairly tough. Governor Little told them, you know, you guys got to work this out because if you don't, the federal government is going to come in and resolve this, it will make the decisions on our water. And we don't want that. We want, we, we exert our water sovereignty. But fascinatingly, I don't hear Governor Little complaining about President Trump's idea. Where is Jim Rich? Where is Mike Crapo? Mike Simpson, these guys all have raised big, hot issues about water over the years. But right now, according to Marty Trillhouse, up at the lowest in Tribune, you know, it's crickets. So, Rocky, I want to talk next about the Columbia River Treaty and how this plays into this idea that the former President Donald Trump brought up about, you know, basically just turn on a big faucet in the Columbia River and California will get all this water. This treaty, it was a lot of years in the making. It's been renegotiated. How does this play into this idea of diverting water? Well, it's interesting because if, you know, if the President is elected again, they have to get that treaty through Congress. And he's already expressed an interest on an issue that the treaty would cover and that's whether they can divert that water out of the basin. And so right now, I would argue that there should be a cotacil or something added to this treaty that does not allow that water to be diverted out of the basin. I would think you could get bipartisan support out of senators like Rich and Maria Cantwell, you know, to hold that up. But right now, no Republican is complaining about this in the region. So this treaty, you know, is going to be perhaps, you know, the issue in which it's argued. And frankly, you know, there's a lot of issues with this treaty. There's a lot of them are idle of water users. Rightfully, I want to know more. They've got a lot of uncertainty about this treaty. I think this issue needs much more discussion. And we should note, Rocky, this treaty being renegotiated, the federal government renegotiated with four Native American tribes in our region and along with the states of Oregon and Washington, right? And this was to basically try and restore Sam and another fish runs. Correct? That's part of it. That's right. I mean, the treaty handles how much water is used for flood control. It also talks about how much water is used for power. And there's actually a power exchange between us and Canada. And in this treaty, Canada is going to get more power than it currently has been getting. And so, you know, that was part of the trade off. But also, as you said, this treaty specifically says, you know, you've got to make sure that you're protecting treaty rights and things like Sam. And as you said, Rocky, this treaty has to be approved in the Senate. It has to be approved by the Senate before it is finalized. Correct. Before it's ratified. All right. So where exactly is the treaty right now? And could this be signed before there is a new administration in place come January 20th? So I haven't heard of them, you know, trying to get this through quickly. I just haven't heard that yet. It was in it was basically signed in July. That's only a couple of months ago. So I got to believe that it won't happen at least until 2025. So with that said, Rocky, let's let's say that the former President Trump is reelected. He takes office in January, since he has resurrected this idea of diverting water to California. How easy would it be a for him to get that approved? But be for this to actually happen because, I mean, we know that going back to the 90s, what they were proposing and the cost and just how difficult it would be to actually pump this water, you know, up a mountain and then down and that, you know, and I mean, it's, it's a, it's a very involved process. Well, Jenna, that's true. And I'm skeptical it could be done. But I have to say, you know, I've been studying water my entire career, water policy. And there's one thing we all pretty much acknowledges water runs uphill towards money. So if they can pay for it, they can make it happen. And, you know, if you lived in the Owens Valley area of California, you know, it was a century ago that they just basically took their water and pumped it down into Los Angeles. And they ran it in a big long aqueduct. And today it's dry. There are amazing things that can be done for political reasons. And that's why I'm very shocked. Because when I moved Idaho, and we both lived over in Eastern Idaho, when you lived in Eastern Idaho, you knew politically how important water was. And I haven't heard anything from any politicians in this state complaining about this. And I just think that it's a serious issue that people need to be talking about so that they, you know, can do something about it. Rocky, before I let you go, how concerned should Idahoans be if something like this were to proceed? And whether you are on the left or on the right, you know, everybody needs water. And when we're talking about diverting it from Idaho, I would assume that could impact every single Idahoan. Absolutely. The first people who would feel it, of course, are farmers. And these people, there's, we're basically talking about drying up thousands of acres of Idaho so that we can take the water that we're using to irrigate the crops and shipping it away. We don't need as much water in the cities for drinking and for industrial use as they need for farm use. So that's where the first thing we'd see is we'd see Idaho farmland get dried up. Well, Rocky, I appreciate that. And thank you for bringing this to all of our attention. So really appreciate your time with us. We've been talking with Rocky Barker, who covered environmental issues for the United States. And for decades, you can find Rocky at rockybarker.com and his blog post, Letters from the West. And you can find his article there. Thanks so much for listening to Idaho Matters. Boise State Public Radio and Idaho Matters are members of the NPR Network. It's an independent coalition of public media podcasters. You can find more shows the network wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jamaka Dett. We'll see you tomorrow. The candidates for November are set. I know Donald Trump's tight. Between now and election day. We are not going back. A campaign season unfolding faster. Kamala Harris is not getting a promotion. Then any in recent history. Make America great again. Follow it all with new episodes every weekday on the NPR Politics podcast.
