Idaho has a limited water supply, and hanging onto — and carefully using — what it has are among the most pertinent topics for the state’s leading public officials, both as a matter of politics and policy. But the details, and breadth, of the threat to Idaho water users are worth bearing in mind.

Gov. Brad Little spoke Sept. 23 about a report developed by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is seeking more information about how the states use their groundwater.

The council said, “in many parts of the country, the quality of groundwater has become so poor that it seriously impacts the health of communities that rely on it. This is especially true for farming and tribal communities with no other access to potable water. Groundwater is managed locally, with best practices that vary from state to state, but there is an opportunity to develop and scale approaches to restore clean water in every community.” This is true, and it’s also a fact that groundwater sources sometimes cross state boundaries (as the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer does in Idaho).

The council was speaking only about gathering technical data, most of which already is public; no specific changes or expansion of federal activities were proposed.

Little and Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke said in response, “Management of water is a state issue. We do not invite or welcome the involvement of the federal government in making decisions about this precious resource.”

The point that states should maintain general control over water, which in some ways even is written into federal law, is valid. But while the council report was described on the governor’s website as a “groundwater grab,” it isn’t. Wariness about federal involvement is appropriate, but specifics matter. Without federal reclamation projects, for example, there would be no Magic Valley.

If control of water is a major concern for Little and Bedke, as it should be, they should have been rocked by comments by not just an advisory council but by the Republican nominee for president.

At a Sept. 13 news conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., Donald Trump said: “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down. And they have, essentially, a very large faucet, and you turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn, and it’s massive ... and you turn that, and all of that water goes aimlessly into the Pacific. And if you turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles.”

Translating from Trumpspeak: He is proposing to take the Northwest’s water and send it to California. OK, this is a fantasy. There is no “faucet” and no water diversion system now exists that would even allow this to happen, and if one were built, the project might take decades. Tricia Stadnyk, of the University of Calgary, said of Trump’s remarks that, “It’s somebody that doesn’t fully understand how water works and doesn’t understand the intricacies of allocating water not only between two countries but also for the environment.” To say the least.

Still, Trump said that if he is elected, he would do it. No study, no public comment. It would be Trump administration policy.

For generations, Idahoans have been concerned about the idea of California reaching up to the Columbia River system and piping its water down to the big-population centers of the Southwest, drying large parts of Idaho (and Washington and Oregon, too, for that matter). Now a major-party nominee for president is proposing, explicitly, to do exactly that.

This is not just gathering information. This is not a study. This is an actual, literal, proposed water grab.

And what has been the reaction to that devastating water proposal from Idaho’s public officials?

Crickets.

It’s quite a contrast from the state’s reaction to the Biden administration study. Wonder why that is?

Stapilus is a former Idaho newspaper reporter and editor who blogs at ridenbaugh.com. He may be contacted at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.