Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OdlLL5 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />In general, it appears that land owner and other public opposition to this type of project <br />would be more problematic if major impacts to water rights and groundwater wells were <br />possible. The project had strong local support and, while questions were raised (e.g., <br />impacts on domestic wells), no significant problems were experienced in securing the <br />necessary permits and water rights. This was due in large part to the openness of project <br />planning and accessibility of district board members to the public. <br /> <br />The SWID board members were accessible to all parties throughout the demonstration <br />project process. Where problems arose, the district officers addressed them promptly. This <br />was a successful approach towards addressing problems inherent in a project of this scope. <br /> <br />Permits and Institutional Issues <br /> <br />Well drilling permits, groundwater injection permits, and water rights were processed <br />under existing Idaho statutes and administrative regulations. <br /> <br />Water rights are a predominant institutional and administrative issue. Obtaining water <br />from Snake River water supplies for use in project groundwater recharge injection activities <br />was successfully addressed. The Snake River is highly appropriated, and water demands to <br />meet competing economic and environmental water needs are evident. <br /> <br />The SWID had to negotiate with the Twin Falls Canal Company to transport Snake River <br />water supplies to Murtaugh Lake. Water had to be pumped from the lake and conveyed to <br />groundwater injection sites. <br /> <br />The SWID negotiated a long-term leasing agreement with the Upper Snake Water Bank for <br />stored water supplies. The water bank is a depository for irrigation water right holders <br />who have surplus water supplies which, in turn, are available for leasing. <br /> <br />Water rights issues would likely be more difficult if greater quantities of water were <br />involved. Yet, a small amount of water used in recharge during times of surplus (spring) <br />can benefit seasonal recharge operations. <br /> <br />Project Costs <br /> <br />Total project costs were $3,525,460, of which $2,646,929 were paid by the High Plains States <br />Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program, and $878,531 were paid by the SWID. <br />This results in a 25 percent cost share for this project. <br /> <br />Of the total project costs, about 35 percent or $1,221,129 was spent on the water quality <br />monitoring program. This cost is expected to be lower for continued operations once <br />baseline and water quality monitoring is established. <br /> <br />A detailed breakdown of project costs is included in table 2. <br /> <br />9 <br />