ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan

Public Meetings

December 2, 4, 10 2008

Idaho Water Resource Board

Jonathan Bartsch--CDR Associates

Presentation Outline• Background and Overview of CAMP Process

• Management Alternatives and Packages

• Long-Term Hydrologic Recommendation

• Phase I (1- 10 year) Recommendations

• Additional Recommendations

• Funding Recommendations

• Public Comments and Next Steps

Background

• Framework Plan funded by 2006 Legislature

• Board conducted stakeholder outreach to develop ESPA CAMP Framework (2007)

• 2007 Legislative funding and authorization for Advisory Committee

• Presenting a completed plan to the 2009 Legislature.

Goal for Aquifer 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 Aquifer 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

ESPA CAMP Advisory Committee Background

• Pursuant to House Bill 320 the Board created and convened 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

ESPA CAMP Advisory Committee Background • Committee composition established through a

stakeholder nomination and Board selection process

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

• 18 Committee meetings and numerous sub-committee meetings held

• Meetings convened across the ESPA • Operating Protocols established

– Consensus-based decision making process

Fish and Wildlife Sub-Committee

Purpose to examine impacts to Fish and Wildlife as a result of CAMP – Development of features and factors

document (checklist of important issues)– Modeling effort analyzing changes to river and

spring flows – Observations and recommendations included

in the technical report

Economic Analysis

Cost effectiveness assessment of demand reduction options– Identify costs of CAMP implementation – Trade-offs between demand reduction

strategies– Economic model developed can be used to

identify most cost-effective measures– Analysis included in the CAMP technical

reports

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 Alternatives Key Components

– Alternative Description– Estimated Average Supply – Estimated Cost– Hydrologic Impacts– Implementation Timeframe

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

Long-term Recommendation – 600 kaf Water Budget 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

• Estimated annual revenue required - $30 M

What is a Water Budget?

A water budget is a method for accounting the inflow and outflow of a system, e.g. ESPA.

Long-term Recommendation– 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 opportunities and

impacts in CAMP implementation

Phase I Recommendations

Phase I (1 – 10 years) • Hydrologic target of 200kaf – 300kaf • Intended to 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 Recommendations

– 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

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) 91,223

Recharge (Wood River) 22,565

Conversions 85,027

Water Use Efficiency 32,100

Weather Modification 51,500

Demand 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-10cf

s

ESPA CAMPEstimated Increase in Ground Water Levels

at Selected Locations

Minidoka County

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

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

feet

Near American Falls Reservoir

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

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

et

Phase I Recommendation– 200 kaf – 300 kaf change

– Implementation will result, dependant 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 Recommendations

– CAMP Implementation Committee Refocus and 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 Recommendations

– 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

CAMP Funding Principles

CAMP Funding Principles– Broad-based– Universal to all water users– Provides equitable benefit– Efficient revenue collection– Minimizes interest expenses

Phase I Cost and Recommendation

• $70 million – $100 million dollars needed to implement a 200 – 300 kaf annual water budget change in first 10 years

• ESPA water users contribute 60%

• State of Idaho contributes 40%

Phase I Funding Recommendations

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

Phase I Funding: Water Users Component

– Pay-As-You-Go. A financial policy that pays for capital outlays from current revenues rather than borrowing. An approach that pays for some improvements from current revenues and others by borrowing is said to be on a partial or modified pay-as-you-go basis.

– Idaho Water Resource Board Contract. Using the existing Board Authority to issue revenue bonds, in which principal and interest are payable entirely from the revenue received. This approach would be potentially taxable.

– Water Management Improvement District. Assesses a fee to defray part or all of the costs of a specific improvement or service. A Water Management Improvement District would require legislative action to grant authority to establish a separate district.

Phase I Funding: State Component

State Water Management Project General Fund Appropriations from kilowatt

per hour (kwh) power franchise fee, a state sales or property tax, special product or service tax, etc. to pay for the state portion of the management plan

State Water Fund Develop a state-wide water fund, funded

through a state water management project, to authorize and fund such projects

Adaptive Management

– Involves taking action (Phase I actions), – Testing assumptions,– Monitoring, and – Adapting and adjustment as necessary

A way to take action in the face of uncertainty

Comment

Ways to provide your input include: 1) Attend Public Workshop and provide comment,

2) Send written comment via mail (to Idaho Department of Water Resources Attn: Sandra Thiel P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0098) or

3) Provide comment in electronic form via e-mail (to IDWRInfo@idwr.idaho.gov).

Comments due by January 5, 2009

Questions

1. What is your input regarding the long-range hydrologic goal and strategies outlined in the plan?

2. What are your comments on the proposed Phase I hydrologic target and actions?

3. What is your input regarding the funding and collection mechanisms outlined in the CAMP?

4. Other Comments?

ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan

Public Meetings

December 2, 4, 10 2008

Idaho Water Resource Board

Jonathan Bartsch--CDR Associates