Status Update on ESPA Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) Natural - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Status Update on ESPA Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) Natural Resources Interim Committee September 12, 2019

Presentation Overview 1. ESPA Aquifer History 4. ESPA GWMA Designation Contested 2. Review of Key Administrative and Legal Actions 5. Statement of Issues 3. Need for GWMA 6. Progress of Contested Case 7. What if Designation is Finalized?

The ESPA Aquifer in Review

ESPA Volume of Water and Thousand Springs Discharge 20.00 7,000 Calculated Thousand Springs 18.00 6,700 Discharge 16.00 ESPA Cumulative 6,400 Volume Change (AF) Cumulative Storage Change (million acre-feet) 14.00 6,100 12.00 5,800 Discharge (cfs) 10.00 5,500 8.00 5,200 6.00 4,900 4.00 4,600 2.00 4,300 0.00 4,000 1912 1918 1924 1930 1936 1942 1948 1954 1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2008 2014 2020

Causes for Declines in the ESPA • Historical increase in Ground Water Diversions • Changing Climate Patterns • Increase in surface water irrigation efficiencies (i.e. less incidental recharge) • Winter Water Savings (i.e. Palisades Reservoir Water Supply) • Flow Augmentation Releases (i.e. salmon recovery)

Review of Key Administrative and Legal Actions • Moratorium on new water rights since 1992 • Snake River Basin Adjudication defined the water rights • Senior surface water right holders made various delivery calls for priority distribution • IDWR issued curtailment orders • Water districts 100, 110, 120, and 130 created to administer ground water rights • Ground Water Districts formed to collectively address curtailments Historic Agreements: SWC & IGWA, “Cities” • ESPA CAMP – Conversions, demand reduction, managed recharge • • IDWR establishes the ESPA GWMA

a"? ^ i CD w 0' i^l =^ a? <^ ^..

IDAHO Department of Water Resources Legend ESPA GWMA Uefferson'CIark Ground Watery District HenrysiForkjG round ^WateijDistrict Mad is^riIGrdUncHWater; District BI9 i!lostIRJ^^rouny iwatei^Dis^J^ round ^/Vateri DistrictlL £ Bon nevi I le?JeffersonTG rouncl Watefi District rb'urfd ^Water; District Bmg Kam[G ro\md ^Watei^ District are^aUey^roy^^Wateri^strict NSFtJ^s7^?yG7SH7^W^1^1?t7i^ta^Aberdeen?AmericanlF,allsIGro^ iic\ValleyZGrounc^Water^ District Raftl River^G rou n4LWat^D istrii jnee-at

Why Do We Need an ESPA GWMA? 1. A Ground Water Management Area (“GWMA”) designation changes the administrative focus from injury determinations for individual water users (symptoms) to the ground water resource as a whole (illness) 2. GWMA tools: (1) comprehensive management plans; (2) required measurement and reporting; and (3) restriction on new applications when there is “insufficient water” 3. GWMAs require participation by all ground water users 4. No more year-to-year curtailment uncertainty w/ the SWC Delivery Call 5. The designation of a GWMA and the adoption of a GWMP will: (1) lesson the likelihood of future delivery calls; and (2) support the achievement of the water resource goals identified by the ESPA CAMP, the State Water Plan, and the Settlements

Why Do We Need an ESPA GWMA? 1. A Ground Water Management Area (“GWMA”) designation changes the administrative focus from injury determinations for individual water users (symptoms) to the ground water resource as a whole (illness) 2. GWMA tools: (1) comprehensive management plans; (2) required measurement and reporting; and (3) restriction on new applications when there is “insufficient water” 3. GWMA’s require participation by all ground water users 4. No more year-to-year curtailment uncertainty w/ the SWC Delivery Call 5. The designation of a GWMA and the adoption of a GWMP will: (1) lesson the likelihood of future delivery calls; and (2) support the achievement of the water resource goals identified by the ESPA CAMP, the State Water Plan, and the Settlements discussed here today

ESPA GWMA Designation Contested Parties in opposition of order: 1. Freemont Madison Irrigation District (FMID) 2. Madison Ground Water District (MGWD) 3. Idaho Irrigation District (IID) 4. Basin 33 Water Users 5. IGWA

Statement of Issues by FMID, MGWD, IID & Basin 33 Users 1. The Director entered the ESPA GWMA Order upon improper procedure. 2. The Director's Conclusions of Law are erroneous, and in contravention of the Operative Statutes, Rules, and Judicial Precedent. 3. A ground water management area may only be comprised of a single ground water basin, not multiple ground water basins.

Statement of Issues by FMID, MGWD, IID & Basin 33 Users 4. A plan approved under Idaho Code § 42-233b can only manage the effects of ground water withdrawals from the ESPA. 5. The Director does not have authority to create the proposed ESPA GWMA because all water rights within the ESPA have been adjudicated and are administered by water districts. 6. The Director has previously recognized that there is no need for a GWMA following the creation of water districts.

Statement of Issues by IGWA 1. Whether the ESPA GWMA must be confined to the Rule 50 Boundary or should it be expanded to encompass the ESPA model boundary and potentially tributary basins. 2. Whether a GWMA is limited to regulating pumping within the ESPA or can be used to regulate pumping in tributary basins. 3. Whether the Director should appoint an advisory committee to make management plans and recommendations to the Director.

Statement of Issues by IGWA 4. Whether groundwater users protected by the 2015 SWC-IGWA Settlement Agreement and the Cities’ 2019 Settlement Agreement approved by the Director as mitigation plans should be excepted and excluded from the GWMA Management Plan. 5. Whether the GWMA Management Plan should consider and recognize geographical and/or hydrological differences within the ESPA .

Progress of the Contested Case Process • Last conference held on July 1, 2019 • Next status conference is scheduled for September 23, 2019 • Hearing process will likely take another 12-18 months to conclude

What if Designation of ESPA GWMA is Finalized? 1. Following designation, IDWR will designate an ESPA GWMA Advisory Committee* 2. Following advisory committee designation, the committee would work to prepare a Ground Water Management Plan to submit to the Director for approval 3. Approximate 2 to 3 years away from having an adopted plan * IDWR is aware of legislation ideas requiring the establishment of GWMA Advisory Committees. IDWR has not seen a draft. IDWR is supportive of required Advisory Committee formation as it is consistent with historical practice.

Questions and/or Discussion? Shoshone Fall, March 2017.