ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan

February 23, 2009

Idaho Water Resource Board

Background

• ESPA Framework Plan Process Initiated 2006, by SCR 136.

• ESPA Framework Plan Developed and Adopted in 2007, HCR 28.

• Advisory Committee Convened (2007) • ESPA Advisory Committee

Recommendations Developed (2008)• Board Adoption of the ESPA Plan,

January 29, 2009.

Framework Plan

Recognized that water supply and demand were out of balance in the aquifer and the Snake River, making more deliberate and coordinated management of surface and ground water a necessity.

Goal for ESPA Management

Sustain the economic viability and social and environmental health of the Eastern Snake Plain by adaptively managing a balance between water use and supplies

Objectives for ESPA Management

• Increase predictability for water users by managing for reliable supply.

• Create alternatives to administrative curtailment.

• Manage overall demand for water within the Eastern Snake Plain.

• Increase recharge to the aquifer. • Reduce withdrawals from the aquifer.

Governors Water SummitBurley Idaho

April 17, 2007

ESPA Plan - Advisory Committee Background • Pursuant to HCR 28, the Board, given

input and direction from Governor, created the ESPA CAMP Advisory Committee (2007)– Broadly based representatives across ESPA

charged with developing consensus-based recommendations to Board (18-month process)

– Focus on long-term aquifer management plan – Guided by the Goal and Objectives

established in the Framework.

ESPA Plan - Advisory Committee Background • Committee composition established by

Board and Governor through a stakeholder nomination and selection process.

• 16-member Committee plus Alternates met for first time in May, 2007

• 18 Committee meetings and numerous sub-committee meetings held

• Broad agreement reached on Plan recommendations (2008)

ESPA CAMP Advisory Committee

• Municipalities/Counties Representative: Mayor Lance Clow, City of Twin Falls Mayor Fuhriman, City of Idaho Falls ; Alternates; Mayor Correll, City of Jerome Mayor Roger Chase, City of Pocatello.

• Business Representative: Alex S. LaBeau, IACI President• Land Developers Representative: Rebecca Casper, Ball Ventures LLC ; Alternate;

Bob Muffley, Board of Realtors/Mid-Snake Commission. • Surface Water Users Representative: Jeff Raybould, Fremont-Madison Irrigation

District, Randy Bingham, Burley Irrigation District, Vince Alberdi, Twin Falls Canal Company Alternates; Lloyd Hicks, Rigby, Steve Howser, Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Company, Albert Lockwood, Northside Canal Company.

• Ground Water Users Representative: Don Parker, Water District 110-100, Tim Deeg, Water District 120, Dean Stevenson, Water District 130-140 Alternates; Scott Clawson, Water District 110-100, Craig Evans, Water District 120, Lynn Carlquist, Water District 130.

• Spring Water Users Representative: Randy MacMillan, Clear Springs Foods, Inc. Alternate; Linda Lemmon, Thousand Springs Water Users Association

Advisory Committee (cont’d)• Hydropower Representative: James Tucker, Idaho

Power Alternate; Dee Reynolds, Fall River Electric • Domestic Well Owners Representative: George

Katseanes, Blackfoot • Environmental and Conservation Interests

Representative: Kim Goodman, Trout Unlimited Alternate; Will Whelan, The Nature Conservancy.

• Mixed-Use Interest Representative: Dan Schaeffer, A&B Irrigation District Alternate; Stan Standal, Spring Water User.

• County Assessor Representative: Max Vaughn, Minidoka County Alternate; Steven Seer, Bonneville County

Advisory Committee (cont’d)AGENCY PARTICIPANTS • Idaho Department of Water Resources: Hal Anderson

Administrator • Idaho Department of Environmental Quality: Barry

Burnell, Water Quality Administrator• Idaho Water and Energy Resources Research

Institute: Roy Mink, Former Director • Idaho Department of Fish and Game: Dave Parish • US Bureau of Reclamation: Richard Rigby, Special

Assistant to Regional Director • US Fish and Wildlife Service: Damien Miller • Governor’s Office: John Chatburn

Management Alternatives

• Management Alternatives Examined – Managed and incidental recharge– Groundwater to surface water conversions – Demand Reduction Strategies

• Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program• Dry-year leasing • Crop mix (incentives to plant low-water use crops)• Buyouts and subordination agreements• Water conservation measures

– Additional surface water storage– Weather modification – Below Milner Dam salmon flow augmentation

exchanges

Management Alternative Packages

Packages Developed include:– Small (300 KAF); least expensive and

quickest to implement– Medium (600 KAF); more expensive and

takes more time to fully implement– Large (900 KAF); most expensive and will

take decades to fully implement– Demand Reduction and Recharge Emphasis

Hydrologic Goal – 600 kaf Change

– 600 kaf Water Budget Change

• Robust mix of conversions, aquifer recharge and demand reduction strategies

– Implementation Timeline – 20 years

– Cost – $600 million not including O&M

Hydrologic Goal- 600 kaf Change

– Implementation will result, depending upon climate, in:

• Improved aquifer levels (stabilization and potential enhancement)

• Increased river reach gains • Increased certainty and water supply for all users • Ability for municipal and industrial growth • Decreased demand for litigation and administrative

remedies• Potential Fish and Wildlife enhancement

opportunities

Phase I Actions

Phase I (1 – 10 years) • Hydrologic target of

200kaf – 300kaf • Initiate actions that

increase aquifer levels, and spring and river levels

• Geographically distributed across the ESPA

• Build institutional confidence with long-term plan implementation

Phase I Actions

– Groundwater to Surface Water Conversions

– Managed Aquifer Recharge

– Demand Reduction • Buyouts, buy-downs and/or subordination agreements• Rotating fallowing, dry-year lease agreement, CREP• Crop mix modification • Surface water conservation

– Pilot Weather Modification Program

PLAN HYDROLOGIC TARGETS

Action Phase I Target (kaf) Long-Term Target (kaf)

Ground Water to Surface Water Conversion

100 100

Managed Aquifer Recharge 100 150-250

Demand Reduction 250-350

Surface Water Conservation 50

Crop Mix Modification 5

Rotating Fallowing, Dry-Year Lease Agreements and CREP Enhancements.

40

Buy Outs, Buy Downs, and/or Subordination Agreements

No Target (Opportunity-Based)

Weather Modification 50* No Target

TOTAL 200-300

600

CAMP Hydrologic Targets

Phase I Actions

– Implementation will result, depending on climate, in:

• Improved aquifer levels (stabilization and potential enhancement)

• Increased gains in some river reaches • Increased water supply certainty for all users • Ability for municipal and industrial growth • Decreased demand for litigation and administrative

remedies• Ongoing public process for CAMP implementation

Additional Actions

– CAMP Implementation Committee Refocus and possibly restructure the CAMP Advisory Committee

– Environmental Considerations Continue to integrate environmental and other considerations

– Clearinghouse Evaluate options to implement a flexible mechanism that connects willing participants in the implementation of ESPA water management projects

Additional Actions

– Outreach and Education

Develop and fund a broad water education and outreach effort

– Management Flexibility and Innovation Explore innovative approaches that can improve water supplies

available for conversion, recharge, and/or enhancement of surface supplies

– Downstream Transfer Policy

Encourage providing water for recharge and conversion projects through downstream transfers of surface water rights to the ESPA in a manner that enhances flows in flow-limited tributaries

Phase I – Implementation Plan • A detailed Implementation Plan will be developed

that outlines:

– Sequence of implementation steps, including research requirements,

– Funding requirements and sources, and

– Necessary legislation, and

– Monitoring and evaluation protocols

Phase I – Implementation Plan • $70 million – $100 million dollars estimated to

implement a 200 – 300 kaf annual water budget change in first 10 years

• Most ESPA water users have conceptually agreed to provide 60% of the required funds with the state of Idaho providing the difference

Phase I - Implementation Plan Funding Participants

• Irrigated Agriculture• Idaho Power/Co-Ops• Municipalities• Spring Users• Industrial/Commercial• State of Idaho • Federal • Recreation/Conservation

Adaptive Management – Involves taking action – Testing assumptions– Monitoring – Adapting and adjustment as

necessary

A way to take action in the face of uncertainty

ESPA CAMPPhase 1 Hydrologic Analysis A series of hydrologic analyses were conducted to determine the effects of

the CAMP Phase 1 actions on aquifer levels and reach gains (spring flows) from the aquifer. The period of 1980-2005 was used as hydrologic input into the analysis. It was determined that over this time period, the Phase 1 CAMP actions could be achieved as follows:

Phase 1 CAMP Action Average acre-feet/year

Recharge (Snake River) 91,223Recharge (Wood River) 22,565Conversions 85,027Water Use Efficiency 32,100Weather Modification 51,500Demand Reduction 44,835

TOTAL 327,250

ESPA CAMPEstimated Increase in Reach Gains (Spring Flows) from the Aquifer at Selected Locations

Blackfoot to Neeley

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

May-80 May-85 May-90 May-95 May-00 May-05 May-10

cfs

Buhl to Thousand Springs

0

5

10

15

20

25

May-80 May-85 May-90 May-95 May-00 May-05 May-10

cfs

ESPA CAMPEstimated Increase in Ground Water Levels at Selected Locations

Near American Falls Reservoir

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

May-80 May-85 May-90 May-95 May-00 May-05 May-10

feet

Plan Approval Process

• Draft Plan was presented to Board on October 29 and suggested changes sent back to Advisory Committee.

• Advisory Committee finalized recommendations on November 30.

• Board adopted draft plan on November 6 with minimal changes.

• Draft plan was posted on Web and written comments solicited, due January 5, 2009.

Plan Approval Process• Public meetings held December 2,4 & 10, verbal testimony

was recorded.• 16 Written Comments received.• Comments distributed to Advisory Committee and

feedback provided to Board.• Board considered feedback made changes and directed

staff to prepare plan for consideration at the January 22 & 23 Board meeting, Plan adopted January 29.

• Board also directed Advisory Sub-Committee to work on legislation needed to assess water users.

• Plan submitted date to House and Senate Resource Committee’s February 2, 2009.

Legislative Adoption

Idaho Code 42-1734B (6)

Requires that the comprehensive state water plan or any component thereof be submitted for legislative review and amendment after adoption by the Idaho Water Resource Board.

OptimismAs a committee member, my hope is that I won't be alone in myoptimism and my conviction that implementing this proposal is the best way tobegin. Right now, without a plan, there is no coherent action-just frustration,distrust and way too much legal action. But if we can approve the CAMPproposal and then empower a small, but well-rounded implementation teamto get to work, there is no telling what they will be able to accomplish usinggood data, a good plan, common sense, good old- American ingenuity andflexible, adaptive management techniques. We will see success-perhapsbaby steps at first, but certainly more down the road. It is not just vital to ourstate and local economies, it is vital to Eastern Idaho's ability to intelligentlymanage the growth that is to come. The entire CAMP Committee nowrecognized that we will never be done managing our aquifer; our challenge isjust to get better at it. Who knows how much better off we will be in a fewyears if we do the hard work of implementation now. Imagine how muchbetter off future generations will be if we can give them a well-managed and healthy

aquifer.Rebecca Casper , Ball Ventures LLC

QUESTIONS ?

http://www.espaplan.idaho.gov/documents/ESPA_CAMP_lowres.pdf