PUB00145 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Western States Water Council Full Council Minutes Boise, Idaho April 22, 2005 . Questions and Answers Jack Stults asked for the I).ame of Karl's decision. Weir Labatt asked for a brief explanation of the decision. Karl stated they had devised a means of predicting 2005 material injury, which was estimated to be 133,400 acre-feet - a level based on shortages in storage. All the plaintiffs have storage contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). This is the injury to natural flow and reasonable storage. We used our ground water model and Geographic Information System (GIS) links between spatial data and ground water use. We have 10,000 cells with information on surface water, ground water, etc. We went to the model and cut off water to hydraulically connected reaches until we got 133,400 af. We determined February 27, 1979 to be the priority cut off date. That is about 30,810 acres and 3,000 rights. The reach gains or accrues a surface entitlement of 133,400 af over time. If ground water diverters can replace 133,400 af - that will be deemed adequate mitigation. Idaho's April peak snowpack and projected runoff is our best information on total water supply. I don't know how it is going to runoff. There may be the same amount of water, but it could have a different impact on natural flow rights and storage rights. With last year's rains, Twin Falls got . their natural flow rights in priority into July, which is unusual. For 2005, predicted runoff is 2.64 Maf , which is similar to 2003 and 2004. Our 2002 storage, was more than 200,000 af. Evapotranspiration (ET) is another variable that must also be factored in. Our prediction is that there will be "reasonably likely injury." Injury will be reevaluated to determine what actual injury there was. If it is greater or less than projected, the ground water users will have a debit or credit. The ground water users may also choose to supply 27,700 ac ft of minimum mitigation, and owe the rest. But nobody knows what next year will bring and further injury would be added on top of 2005 totals. Without mitigation, their ground water use will be curtailed. We have no recourse. The water debt could become overwhelming. Ground water users are reportedly borrowing money to buy replacement water, with no guarantee for the future. The best solution appears to be to curtail their irrigated acres or pay the full mitigation amount. Karl stated that he expects court challenges soon. This is precedent setting for Idaho, but "I made the best decision with the facts and law that I could make." Pat Tyrrell asked: "When does the order go into effect?" Karl said that ground water users have one week from today to file a replacement water plan. If not, then the 1 sl week in May, watermasters will shut off wells. Hal Simpson asked, "The decision doesn't effect the fish propagators' rights?" 6 .