On June 10-11, the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA) held its midyear meeting in Sun Valley, Idaho, where a key presentation addressed the contentious issue of the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA).
Speakers included Kent Fletcher, attorney for the Surface Water Coalition (SWC); T.J. Budge, representative for the Idaho Groundwater Appropriators (IGWA); and James Cefalo, regional manager of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR). They discussed the challenges, conflicts and potential solutions for the ESPA.
Fletcher began by outlining the geographical significance of the ESPA, which spans from Rexburg to Ashton and down to King Hill, emphasizing its importance to surface water irrigation entities in the Magic Valley.
The history of water rights in the ESPA underscores the complexity of the issue. “Surface water rights began much earlier than groundwater,” Fletcher noted. “Almost all groundwater rights on the ESPA are junior to surface water rights.” About 1 million acres of farmland use groundwater, another million use surface water and some areas use both.
Despite efforts by many groundwater users to reduce usage and recharge the aquifer, conflicts persist due to noncompliance by some. “I'm not trying to disparage a whole class of irrigators in Idaho,” Fletcher said, “but, some have not done what they agreed to do, and that’s what’s creating the conflict.”
Fletcher recounted the timeline of negotiations and legal battles, highlighting the 2005 water call by the SWC after prolonged droughts and failed negotiations. The IDWR determined that junior groundwater pumping was injuring senior surface water supplies, leading to IGWA filing a storage water mitigation plan in 2009, which fell short of restoring water supplies
In 2015, a critical agreement required groundwater districts to reduce usage by 240,000 acre-feet annually and deliver 50,000 acre-feet of storage water to the SWC as an insurance policy against injury. “Our mitigation plan is not an injury-based plan. … It is an attempt to restore the aquifer,” Fletcher stated.
The significant snowfall and spring flooding of “Snowmageddon” in 2017 recharged the aquifer and raised water levels, contributing to meeting the agreement's benchmark by 2020. Yet, the subsequent hot summers of 2021 and 2022 strained the storage system, causing breaches in the agreement as certain groundwater districts failed to reduce divergence as required. This led to resolving the 2021 breach through storage water delivery to SWC, but the 2022 breach remains unsolved, endangering safe harbor for three districts.
“So while those groundwater districts are breaching the 2015 agreement, Twin Falls Canal Company is running short of water,” Fletcher said. “Twin Falls Canal Company cut deliveries both years. And, what that means when they cut water like that, they're cutting down to half inch per acre over 200,000 acres. Those two things, operating in parallel, helped create the conflict we’re in today.”
T.J. Budge. Photo by Cassidy Woolsey.
In 2023, methodology orders issued by the IDWR introduced changes in injury determination and curtailment processes, adding to the controversy. “Although, in reality, if people are complying with our mitigation plan, it really doesn't matter because that change in the model only really deals with determining who gets curtailed if they don't have a mitigation plan in place,” Fletcher emphasized.
On May 30, the IDWR Director Mathew Weaver issued a curtailment order that requires 6,400 junior groundwater rights holders who pump off the ESPA to shut off their water. Gov. Brad Little has supported the IDWR's actions, urging groundwater districts to comply with the mitigation plan.
“Something has to be done if you don't reach the benchmarks. There will probably be injury determinations every year,” Fletcher warned, emphasizing the importance of addressing these issues to prevent further conflicts.
A lawsuit filed by the Bonneville/Jefferson groundwater districts against the SWC, IGWA and all groundwater districts that signed the 2015 agreement adds another layer of complexity. They seek to invalidate the 2015 mitigation agreement and claim millions in damages against the SWC.
“We're not talking about a speculative situation here,” Fletcher reminded. “It was determined that the junior groundwater pumpers were injuring senior surface water supplies.” He noted the natural flow has declined about 12% since the call was made, partly due to changing industries in Idaho, including the growth of dairy and potato farming, and high-usage crops such as hay, beets and corn.
T.J. Budge, representing IGWA, emphasized the need for cooperation and balanced solutions. He highlighted that the conflict over water management is not about “good guys and bad guys.” Budge noted, “My clients may not want me to say this, but I actually like the surface water coalition people that I interact with … I think they're good people, and they're doing what they think is in their best interest.” This underscores that both sides are working toward what they believe is best for their constituencies.
According to Budge, “We've learned in the last two years that there's a major failing in that agreement … there were a lot of terms that were not defined.” The urgency and brevity with which the agreement was crafted left it vague, leading to differing interpretations and subsequent litigation over its implementation.
Despite these challenges, Budge highlighted the efforts of groundwater users to conserve water. “Since 2016, we've conserved 2.6 million acre-feet of water … on average, that's 325,000 acre-feet a year,” he reported. This exceeds the agreed-upon conservation target of 240,000 acre-feet annually. However, in 2021, when conservation fell short of this target, the surface water coalition sued, arguing a breach of the agreement. The department sided with the coalition, rejecting the practice of averaging conservation over multiple years.
Budge acknowledged that not all groundwater users have met expectations, but he insisted that the majority have exceeded requirements. He also pointed to the complexities of the aquifer, particularly the differing behaviors west and east of the Great Rift. This geological feature splits the aquifer and affects water management strategies. Budge noted, “The aquifer is not homogenous, and how we manage it may need to reflect the geologic realities of different parts.”
The 2015 agreement was based on an outdated groundwater model, which predicted significant rises in the water table if conservation targets were met. However, real-world results have fallen short. Budge explained, “The aquifer has not responded the way the model predicted … This is a problem.” Updated models and actual data reveal a slower-than-expected recovery, prompting questions about how to adapt to this new understanding.
The crux of the policy debate lies in choosing between two approaches: strategic water management to maximize farmland productivity or widespread curtailment to meet surface water needs. The department has leaned towards curtailment, increasing the conservation target incrementally. Budge warned, “The current trajectory … is 6,000 acres of farmland dried up every year.” This gradual reduction threatens the viability of agriculture in Idaho.
Budge argued for exploring alternatives to mass curtailment, such as capturing surplus water and improving irrigation efficiency through technology. “Before we jump to mass curtailment, could we exhaust reasonable alternatives?” he asked.
James Cefalo. Photo by Cassidy Woolsey.
James Cefalo, the regional manager of the IDWR, oversees water right review approvals, transfer reviews and transfer applications. Additionally, he serves as a hearing officer for various test cases presented to the agency.
Cefalo outlined the tools available to the state, the department and the director when a groundwater management area is designated. One key tool, mandated by statute, is the creation of a groundwater management plan. This plan manages the effects of groundwater withdrawals on the aquifer from which the withdrawals are made, excluding other hydraulically connected water sources.
The ESPA is not the first groundwater management area created. Typically, an advisory committee is assembled from water users in the basin to guide the director in drafting the management plan. This process was followed for the ESPA. In August 2023, IDWR, in consultation with the governor's office, created an advisory committee of 13 representatives from water user groups within the ESPA. Cefalo was asked to serve as the facilitator for this committee. Beyond the 13 committee members, additional stakeholders were invited to participate, leading to significant involvement in each meeting.
From September 2023 to February 2024, the committee met eight times to review technical information, examine management plans from other basins and discuss potential options. Throughout this process, four key categories of potential management strategies emerged:
- Groundwater recharge infrastructure expansion: There is consensus on expanding the groundwater recharge infrastructure above American Falls. While past efforts focused on the reach between American Falls and Milner Dam, the infrastructure above American Falls is essential, especially during years with additional water supplies.
- Limiting new depletions from the ESPA: There is agreement on limiting new depletions from the ESPA. A moratorium currently limits new consumptive uses, but domestic uses remain a point of contention, as thousands of domestic wells are drilled annually, adding to consumptive use.
- Expanding the groundwater management area: There is support for expanding the groundwater management area to include tributary basins and their groundwater uses.
- Allocation system for the management plan: There is consensus that the management plan should be based on an allocation system rather than a reduction system. This approach would allocate a specific amount of water to be pumped each year, replacing the current reduction-based method.
However, Cefalo also highlighted areas of disagreement that require further discussion:
- Scope of the management plan: There is debate over whether the plan should include recovery elements or focus solely on stabilizing the resource.
- Short-term and long-term objectives: There is no consensus on the timeline for achieving goals, with differing opinions on whether to aim for a 50-year period or a shorter time frame.
- Allocation system details: Disagreement exists on whether the allocation should be based on a one-year system or multiyear blocks of water.
- Metrics and benchmarks for success: There is no agreement on which metrics to use – whether to measure success in the aquifer, spring flow or river reach.
- Tracking groundwater pumping: There is debate over the use of real-time measuring devices and telemetry for tracking groundwater conversions.
- Groundwater recharge to offset funding: There is disagreement on whether groundwater recharge should offset existing or future funding.
The next committee meeting would be held in early July, with plans to meet frequently over the coming months. The goal is to have a draft plan by December 2024.
.jpg?t=1687979285&width=640){kind=logo}
