Q&A: Peter Anderson

The Idaho Water Project's work often involves patient negotiations and behind-the-scenes work with policymakers and other water stakeholders. Peter Anderson, an attorney for TU's Idaho Water Project, talks about his role.

What does the Idaho Water Project do?
Idaho is blessed with some of the great fishing waters of the country – the Henry's Fork, Silver Creek, the South Fork of the Snake. There are a lot of rivers that are in very good shape. But often small headwater tributaries, places where the trout go to spawn, are disconnected by diversions of water for irrigation. Our work is to try to use traditional Idaho water law to gain more flows to maintain healthy fisheries. And if we're unable to imaginatively use water law in that way, then we have to try and make changes through other efforts, legislative and otherwise.

What are some priority issues?
In Idaho we're seeing a push by traditional water interests to construct new dams on several rivers: the Boise, the Weiser, the Teton.  Everyone thought the era of big dam-building was over, punctuated by the failure of the Teton Dam in Idaho in 1976. But lately there's been a resurgence of the idea that we need new dams, and the State has been in the forefront of studying and advocating for those new dams. The Water Project is opposed to most of these dam projects, primarily because of the impact they have on fish. But we're not opposed to finding ways to satisfy the need that farmers, irrigators and others have for water. Our view is that we can achieve those water supply goals without the tremendous habitat and fisheries damage that a traditional concrete and rebar instream dam would have, through alternatives such as water use optimization, water markets, efficiency, off-stream storage, groundwater storage - all of which provide the same or similar benefits without causing the huge ecosystem damage. And, incidentally, those options are almost always less expensive than big dams.

You do a lot of inside, behind the scenes policy work – explain how you do this work and why it's important.

(Idaho Water Project director) Kim Trotter and I want to be there when decisions are made and offer constructive alternatives that are good water policy, good fisheries policy and good economic policy for the state of Idaho. We collaborate with various stakeholders to find solutions that work for everybody and that address multiple needs, from farms and ranches to healthy fish habitat. We're trying to get the message out that rivers can't be viewed simply as water sources for businesses - they also provide important wildlife, recreation and lifestyle benefits - and we have to find a way to accommodate all of these uses for the future.

And so a lot of my work is "inside" work talking to policymakers and water users and easing their level of concern about new ideas and alternatives. We attend lots of meetings, give presentations, sit on subcommittees and environmental task forces to review impacts and policies. We talk to folks over lunch and coffee breaks, call them on the phone, meet with people and listen to their viewpoints. It's about building relationships to get things done.

Why is getting a seat at the table important?
TU understands that a pragmatic, collaborative approach - not confrontation - is the best way to get conservation work done in the West. By getting a seat at the table, we're able to work through our differences and have a real impact on the ground.

What have been some successes with this collaborative approach?
When I first came on board, there was a project planned for a water diversion on the Henry's Fork in eastern Idaho, one of the great fishing rivers in the world. We worked with Idaho Fish and Game and other NGO partners to negotiate with a hydropower developer who wanted to put in a hydropower plant on that diversion dam. We were able to agree on a plan to raise Chester Dam about 36 inches, put in a hydropower plant, but at the same time screen the canals that come off the dam, so those big fish that we all love, and their small progeny, no longer go out and get trapped in the canals.  Also, that dam had been in place since the 1920s and blocked travel of fish up and down the Henry's Fork.  We negotiated with them to give us an opportunity to put in a fish ladder, too, so for the first time in half a century fish could come back upstream through the dam. In sum, they were able to do the economic development and hydropower, and we got a lot of fisheries benefits. That's an example of how those interests can be reconciled.

Another big project is the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer Management Plan, which I've worked a lot on with Kim Trotter (director of Idaho Water Project). This was a big effort to balance the amount of groundwater being taken out of that aquifer, because the aquifer feeds a whole series of springs along the Snake River in south central Idaho, and those springs support flows in Billingsly Creek, the Box Canyon and whole lot of other places that are wonderful fisheries. The flows of those springs have been dropping because of these longstanding groundwater uses. We were able to offer a whole series of policy recommendations that helped protect those springs and other streams while maintaining the farm economy in central Idaho. That was a big success for us and helped us win some credibility with the farm community there.

Water is a touchy subject with ranchers and irrigators. How do you approach that?

Well, I've worked in Idaho water policy for a long time. I know a lot of the people who are involved in it, and know what's important to them. I grew up in Idaho. Both of my grandfathers were farmers and irrigated their land, so I have a pretty good understanding of those traditional Idaho values. Part of TU's message is that we're not hostile to farming and irrigation - in fact, we're supportive of agriculture and recognize that it's an important part of our state.

Farmers and ranchers love to go outside and recreate. They're hunters and fishermen and don't want to destroy that aspect of their lives if they can avoid it. A lot of times people just aren't providing them with the options to achieve that balance.

On the Teton Dam issue, you and Kim recently had a decisive impact on the course of that study – how did that come about?
We were disappointed when the state Legislature decided to study rebuilding the dam. So we started a series of conversations with lawmakers, local planners and Bureau of Reclamation staff. We told them that if they wanted to do real planning that was not a waste of money, then they should look at the real problems they wanted to solve, and look at the full range of cost-effective and environmentally effective options. We argued that they could resolve eastern Idaho's water needs without having to rebuild Teton Dam, which would almost certainly cost $1 billion or more to construct. We requested meetings at the local level with BOR, then went up to the area director, then the regional director, and then we made at least two trips back to Washington, D.C., to talk to the commissioner of Reclamation.  On the first trip back, through the extraordinary connections of Steve Moyer in Arlington, we also talked with a very bright counsel for the Senate Natural Resources Committee - Mike Connor. A few months later, he became the new commissioner of Reclamation. Kim and I talked about solutions that were cost-effective and environmentally benign, and we kind of turned around the politics in the BOR. They realized that a single-focus study was really a waste of time and money. So they pushed back hard against the state planners, I think, and encouraged them to do a broader study. We also had discussions with state policymakers, who agreed that a broad study was a better use of funds. That was a great victory - now we're trying to keep our eye on the study process to make sure they don't backslide.

How does TU grassroots help you in your policy work?
The great thing about grassroots TU members is that for the most part they're just fishermen - they're not professional environmentalists. To be a member of TU, you mainly just have to like fish and fishing, so we have businesspeople, farmers, ranchers, loggers - people from all walks of life. That means for legislators, that they're not just hearing from professional staff. These grassroots members are ordinary citizens who care about Idaho and the outdoor legacy they're leaving for their children. Having them behind us is huge.

When I give presentations, I like to show photos of TU volunteers out doing fencing for ranchers, teaching kids how to fish, helping wounded veterans to heal through fishing. You can't dislike them. They are great people – and that's who I represent.