John Chenoweth: “Mr. Chairman, I come from a Western State where water is our lifeblood, where without water there is no production of…”

“Mr. Chairman, I come from a Western State where water is our lifeblood, where without water there is no production of agriculture at all, and without the systems of canals that were built beginning at the turn of the century, we would not be able to apply water to our land, and thus Idaho, whose largest industry is agriculture, would not be able to survive. The prior appropriation doctrine, the legal water law in the 12 Western States, requires a proving up of beneficial use, which means that even if you had 100 acres to irrigate and you applied for a certain volume of water to irrigate that 100 acres, if you even paid for that water and there was more water that was left over, you would lose the volume of water that you paid for. In other words, if we do not use it we lose it. That is proving up of the beneficial use, which all of the 12 Western States must do. If we were cut down to 20 percent of the whole, that would mean that 20 percent of our entire agricultural production in Idaho would be cut down, and I am so pleased to hear my colleague from Louisiana announce that there will be an amendment coming up which would require 20 percent of the value of the taking. That is much more acceptable but still not good enough for me. I will support that amendment, however, but I do rise in opposition to this amendment.”