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

1. ESPA Aquifer History 2. Review of Key Administrative and Legal Actions 3. Need for GWMA

Presentation Overview

4. ESPA GWMA Designation Contested 5. Statement of Issues 6. Progress of Contested Case 7. What if Designation is Finalized?

The ESPA Aquifer in Review

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

ESPA Volume of Water and Thousand Springs Discharge

Calculated Thousand Springs Discharge ESPA Cumulative Volume Change (AF)

• 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)

Causes for Declines in the ESPA

• 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

Review of Key Administrative and Legal Actions

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

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

• f 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

Why Do We Need an ESPA GWMA?

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

ESPA GWMA Designation Contested

• 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 FMID, MGWD, IID & Basin 33 Users

• 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
• r 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.

Statement of Issues by IGWA

• 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

Progress of the Contested Case Process

• 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.

What if Designation of ESPA GWMA is Finalized?

Questions and/or Discussion?

Shoshone Fall, March 2017.