A representative of the Utah Water Coalition, former Sen. Fred Finlinson, said he worried about the bill being used in some sort of game. Ure added an example of what he thought might have been such a game: "Because they found one (rare) fish, one day" in a stream stretch in Echo Canyon, the state had to spend $1.5 million improving habitat.

In Ure's opinion, the fish was dumped there.

A representative of the environmentalist Utah Rivers Council supported the bill.

Randy Crozier, a member of the audience, said the stretches of stream involved should be clarified. "I personally have concerns with in-stream flow rights," he said.

He indicated that farmers and ranchers could find it more expensive to buy own water rights with environmental groups buying them too, "because once it's leased elsewhere it makes it hard to compete."

Rep. David N. Cox, R-Lehi, wondered, with Wildlife Resources able to obtain water rights to protect in-stream flows, "why do we need to do this?"

If a farmer or rancher wants to enter into an agreement with a private group interested in protecting trout habitat, why shouldn't that happen? Hawkes countered. Some people may not want to deal with the sate, and in some cases the state may not want to take up the burden of working out a deal.

The difference is that Trout Unlimited would be in control, in the driver's seat, Cox said.

Hawkes had said state approval would be needed for a private group to buy such rights. "What it allows us to do," he replied to Cox's comment, "is to be a player."

---

E-mail: bau@desnews.com