This is a very complex issue. Let me get things stirred up.

Seems like water allocation could be improved by adding some economic incentives.

1. Users should pay what the water costs. This fee should include environmental costs. If it costs too much to grow a crop in an area, i.e. destroys too many fish, farming in that area, i.e. a national refuge, should stop. We already have enough places to farm that don't do damage and most years America produces a surplus of crops that the government buys and destroys.

2. At the same time, farmers and other people with water should be able to conserve water and sell any saved water at market prices to the next person on the list. The water in most western rivers is overallocated. There will usually be a buyer. This will provide an incentive and the economic ability for farmers to make changes or use available technology to conserve.

3. Water users are required to use water for a "beneficial use." The definition of beneficial use is quite narrow in the West, i.e. farming, power, industry, municipal, etc. Leaving water in a stream for anything else allows other users to claim the water and use it for farming, industry etc. This should be changed to allow private users to leave water in the stream for fish, wild life and recreation. If this definition were changed, recreational fishermen could buy and save water for fish.

Finally, doesn't seem unreasonable to fault Bush and his administration for the fish kill. After all, they decided to possibly injure endangered coho, in violation of the Endangered Species Act, for the benefit of farmers and politics. They took a risk with the salmon and should bear responsibility to the results. I thought Republicans were all for "personal responsibility."