ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan

1. Idaho Water Resource Board ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan Public Meetings December 2, 4, 10 2008 Jonathan Bartsch--CDR Associates

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Management Alternatives Key Components • Alternative Description • Estimated Average Supply • Estimated Cost • Hydrologic Impacts • Implementation Timeframe

12. 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

13. 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

14. What is a Water Budget? A water budget is a method for accounting the inflow and outflow of a system, e.g. ESPA.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

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

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

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

25. 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%

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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

30. Comment Ways to provide your input include: • 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

31. Questions • What is your input regarding the long-range hydrologic goal and strategies outlined in the plan? • What are your comments on the proposed Phase I hydrologic target and actions? • What is your input regarding the funding and collection mechanisms outlined in the CAMP? • Other Comments?

32. Idaho Water Resource Board ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan Public Meetings December 2, 4, 10 2008 Jonathan Bartsch--CDR Associates