1 / 34

ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan

Idaho Water Resource Board. ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan. February 23, 2009. Background. ESPA Framework Plan Process Initiated 2006, by SCR 136. ESPA Framework Plan Developed and Adopted in 2007, HCR 28. Advisory Committee Convened (2007)

adie
Télécharger la présentation

ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Idaho Water Resource Board ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan February 23, 2009

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. Governors Water Summit Burley Idaho April 17, 2007

  7. 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.

  8. 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)

  9. ESPA CAMP Advisory Committee • Municipalities/CountiesRepresentative: 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. • BusinessRepresentative: Alex S. LaBeau, IACI President • Land DevelopersRepresentative: Rebecca Casper, Ball Ventures LLC ; Alternate; Bob Muffley, Board of Realtors/Mid-Snake Commission. • Surface Water UsersRepresentative: 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 UsersRepresentative: 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 UsersRepresentative: Randy MacMillan, Clear SpringsFoods, Inc. Alternate; Linda Lemmon, Thousand Springs Water Users Association

  10. Advisory Committee (cont’d) • HydropowerRepresentative: James Tucker, Idaho Power Alternate; Dee Reynolds, Fall River Electric • Domestic Well OwnersRepresentative: George Katseanes, Blackfoot • Environmental and Conservation InterestsRepresentative: Kim Goodman, Trout Unlimited Alternate; Will Whelan, The Nature Conservancy. • Mixed-Use InterestRepresentative: Dan Schaeffer, A&B Irrigation District Alternate;Stan Standal, Spring Water User. • County AssessorRepresentative: Max Vaughn, Minidoka County Alternate; Steven Seer, Bonneville County

  11. 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 Waterand Energy ResourcesResearch 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. CAMP Hydrologic Targets

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. Phase I - Implementation Plan Funding Participants • Irrigated Agriculture • Idaho Power/Co-Ops • Municipalities • Spring Users • Industrial/Commercial • State of Idaho • Federal • Recreation/Conservation

  25. Adaptive Management • Involves taking action • Testing assumptions • Monitoring • Adapting and adjustment as necessary A way to take action in the face of uncertainty

  26. 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

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

  28. ESPA CAMPEstimated Increase in Ground Water Levels at Selected Locations

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. Optimism As a committee member, my hope is that I won't be alone in my optimism and my conviction that implementing this proposal is the best way to begin. 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 CAMP proposal and then empower a small, but well-rounded implementation team to get to work, there is no telling what they will be able to accomplish using good data, a good plan, common sense, good old- American ingenuity and flexible, adaptive management techniques. We will see success-perhaps baby steps at first, but certainly more down the road. It is not just vital to our state and local economies, it is vital to Eastern Idaho's ability to intelligently manage the growth that is to come. The entire CAMP Committee now recognized that we will never be done managing our aquifer; our challenge is just to get better at it. Who knows how much better off we will be in a few years if we do the hard work of implementation now. Imagine how much better off future generations will be if we can give them a well-managed and healthy aquifer. Rebecca Casper , Ball Ventures LLC

  33. QUESTIONS ? http://www.espaplan.idaho.gov/documents/ESPA_CAMP_lowres.pdf

More Related