Water resource management involves complex allocation systems where water rights are prioritized based on historical usage dates, and during drought conditions, authorities implement curtailment measures to protect senior water rights holders. The Idaho Water Resource Board manages water through various programs including managed aquifer recharge, flow augmentation exchanges, and conservation initiatives, balancing agricultural needs with environmental requirements and inter-basin water transfers.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
IWRB Meeting No. 6-26Added:
No, that's what >> I appreciate it. I should have said that.
>> I mean, they're asking for >> still. Well, they're they're they're okay with that. I mean, this is >> this is, you know, moving those projects a little bit. They are really trying to figure out what kind of one they'd like. But what they really are talking legislature will say >> they want you today.
>> Okay.
get down there.
I was thinking Yeah, I understand.
Well, at some point >> right here'll have it either she'll have it. That probably the best way to do it is pull it up.
Okay.
>> Oh man, it was so cool. Yeah.
this weekend.
>> I know.
>> Did you drive?
>> What happened?
Thanks for understanding that push for property out of my place. That's >> we got I don't know.
Great. I started I started some vegetarian She was on her. She got a lot better.
>> They say going to reconvene the meeting. Um uh the next item on our agenda is a stream channel alderation permit. Um uh who do we have Mr. Patton?
>> Uh just me, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Um, in front of you, you have a uh draft order in regard to the matter of S37-20565.
If that is your if that is the board's wish to adopt that order.
>> Okay. Board members, what's your pleasure?
>> I move to adopt that order.
>> Okay. I have a motion.
>> Second.
>> Okay. It's been moved and seconded. I think we'll have a roll call vote on this if we could. Mileen.
>> Absolutely. Mr. Barker. Hi >> Miss Cole Hansen.
>> Hi >> Mr. Gibbs.
>> Hi >> Mr. McMahon.
>> Hi >> Mr. Olmstead.
>> Hi >> Mr. Stevenson.
>> Hi >> Mr. Vanstone.
>> I >> chairman Rayold >> I. Okay. Motion carries. The order is adopted. Okay. Uh next up on the is the approval of the agenda and approval of minutes for meeting 5-26.
Are there any changes to the agenda?
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, I've been informed that the presenter for item number 7A, Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission, is not available today due to some emergencies.
>> Okay.
>> Uh so we'll punt on that that presentation and take that up at a later date. Uh but we will proceed with item 7B.
>> Okay. All right. Board members, any other additions or changes to the agenda? Okay. Uh we have before us uh the minutes, the draft minutes of meeting 5-26. Did anybody peruse those and would like to uh make a motion to approve or are there any changes? I guess first of all, are there any changes that we need to or corrections that we need to make? Brian >> Chairman, I talked to my the date said that we would approve it tomorrow, but you changed that already, Mileen.
>> Okay.
>> I was actually studying hard.
>> Okay. All right. Like like I said last time, Mileen just puts one of those things in every now and then just to make just to check on us and make sure that we that we're doing our due diligence. So do I have a motion then Mr. said?
>> Yes. Motion to change the the date that we approve those minutes to the >> No.
>> With the date change correction. A motion to approve the minutes >> with that date change correction to the 20 21st instead of the 22nd.
>> Okay. the change to the agenda.
>> Yeah, in the change to the agenda.
>> Okay, >> I'll second that motion.
>> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Uh the next item is public comment. Uh uh Brian Murdoch signed up for public comment. If you'd like to come up, Brian.
My name is Brian Murdoch. I represent Murdoch Farms, a massive operation in Bingham County, Idaho. Um, I wanted to come before you today because I wanted to thank you. Um, we had a situation that was going on that I know the water board was involved with and that was the Bureau Rex uh flow augmentation uh releases that we were trying to hold on to 20,000 acre feet. At least that was the attempt so we could use that for our mitigation waters uh with this settlement agreement. And I know we didn't quite get to 20, but I think we're lined up to 15, at least is what I've heard. But I also had heard that you guys were heavily involved in that negotiation process with Bureau of Reclamation, and I appreciate you doing that. Um, we are we have a very interesting water year ahead of us. Um, and as I was driving over here, they were talking about how American Falls Reservoir, they told the folks in Seagull Bay that they had two more weeks before they better be dragging their boats out of American Falls Reservoir, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get them out. And so, this is probably in everything that I helped cause a little bit of a public outcry over. Um, I know that there was a lot of outcry over the the situation of the reservoirs and the recreation opportunities that everybody in the public's not very happy about, I guess.
So, I'm grateful for what you guys have done there. Probably my next question that I came to ask today was the status of the the basin study. um was that I thought we were supposed to be told here in April that we were ready for the next step, but I have not been told anything.
>> We're working our way through that uh reclamation. I I think that decision's made in Washington DC >> and we haven't heard >> and we we just we have not got a response uh to our request, but uh we'll know when we know.
>> Okay. So, that status is still ongoing.
All right. Lastly, the only reason why I'm talking about that is I don't know how many of you guys have noticed this.
This is called the Colorado River Abundance Study or Abundance Act. This is something that's been lined up and I've been very interested in it. It's a $40 billion uh attempt to save the Colorado River, which they're talking about desalination plants and using that water to go into Mexico to to fulfill the the US's needs or commitment to Mexico. I guess my point with this is there's obviously with this crisis of this drought in the west, there's a lot of projects going and if we can somehow push and and take advantage of this crisis as there was that old saying, never let a good crisis go to waste. Um we are in a massive crisis. So, this would be a great time to be pushing uh the Bureau of Recre as hard as we can forward to get these studies done to where we can get something done. One of my most frustrating things in farming was when I'd go to harvest this year's crop and and I would realize that I didn't fix anything or enough stuff from the last year's harvest. And so I get into the middle of harvest and go, "Well, you did it yourself, you stupid idiot, because you didn't get everything fixed." Well, Idaho needs to start fixing a few things. And and the quicker we can get our, you know, addressing some of these storage issues and getting a little more water available, I think would be smart.
But anyway, like I said, I came here to say thank you for your help. Let's keep pushing on the basin study. Thank you.
Any questions?
Any questions? Uh Brian, >> Mr. Chairman, Brian, um so the 15,000 then will that go to some of the recharge sites that we participate in or >> this will be simply our our the last I had heard we had around 50 lined up for sure.
>> Well, just to clarify, I think we're going to get the better part of 25.
>> That's what I'd hoped, but >> Okay, we're going to get the better part of 25. Um, we're going to work with the groundwater districts to make sure they have enough uh to meet their 75,000 acre foot mitigation.
>> Yes.
>> Obligation. There's two or three other things that we might need some of that water for. We're working through all that now. There's some things in play, but uh Reclamation agreed that if they were able to rent 75,000 acre feet from the Payet to Flowog, uh which they've been assured by the Payet, as I understand it, that they will get that volume that they would agree to exchange up to 25,000 acre feet of additional pay water for flow with Palisad's power head. and we're working through all the details on that uh uh with reclamation and hope to have that done very very soon.
>> Mr. Chairman, just one other quick question and you guys are probably a lot better keyed into this. How much water did get spilled in this last two week period or whatever? I was estimating I mean I thought that they were talking about 75,000.
They were talking 90 originally. Well, the the 90 was contingent on getting some additional water elsewhere which didn't materialize. So, it was always that they were going to try and hold it to 90, but if they couldn't get the other water from other sources, then they would have taken however much additional palisades power head they need to hit the 427. So the way it's worked out that makes the target uh amount of palisades power head 100,000 of which they are releasing 75 and probably pretty much have released that 75 by now.
>> Yes.
>> And and that leaves 25 for an exchange to occur.
>> My understanding, believe it or not, I am old enough and I know I'm still younger than most of you here.
I was sitting in that Nez Pierce hearing. That was one of my first earliest things and I know that they had discussed that we would not be able to fulfill that obligation for flow hog every year due to droughts and stuff. In fact, there was talk about 70% of the time was the best we could ever guarantee that there would be water available for flowog. And then I knew that broke down into a series of discussions of whether that meant that three years we could miss as long as we hit the other seven years full or whether it would only be 70% of the water that was supplied. But I know the intent of that NEZ Pierce agreement was that we would have a little wiggle room and I'm feeling like this year of all years would have been the year to exploit any wiggle room we could have.
So, I know you guys are working on that, but I just wanted to say thank you and appreciate the work that the board's doing.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. >> Okay. Did we miss anyone from the public? I'd like to acknowledge Eric Olson. He's here with the Soil and Water Conservation uh Commission. I didn't mean to drag you up here to the podium, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that you were attending today.
Yeah, I'm uh I'm the chairman of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Um I'm working with Matt to get this merger completed. Um we're trying to get through all the details on where we go from here now that the legislation is passed. So I'm a I'm a fourth generation producer from Boundary County. We're up north. Water issues for us are the total opposite from what you guys have to deal with. And I wish that we could help you out in ways sometimes, but uh this I' I've been on the commission for I think about eight years now. And uh I've been on the soil conservation board up there for 14, I believe. And uh it was an eye openener for me to get involved with this and and then really get into the the water side of things down in southern Idaho and seeing what you guys have to deal with. And uh I have a way better understanding.
Um, I have a lot of teaching to do for you guys to understand what a drainage district is versus an irrigation district. But, um, yeah, I'm I'm I'm I'm happy that you guys have had me here today and and I'm interested to learn what you got have to say. So, thanks for attending. Does anybody have any questions or comments? More than happy to work with you to shut up a bucket today.
>> We can do that. We can do that.
Okay.
>> All the water you have.
I I I do I was a part of trying of getting the adjudication for the Kney Basin rolling with Jim Woodward and Mark's daughter. So, um yeah, it's important. It's very important.
>> No, it is very important. Even if we could get a bucket for gate to Moscow, that would be something.
>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman and Eric, we won't be getting presented this programs by the by the commission today.
No, no, >> George. I look through the PowerPoint on my my materials and very very nice powerpoints done important work.
>> Yeah. Yeah. George did a a bangup job.
So, and Matt's been instrumental. So, >> Mr. Chairman, we'll hope to give that presentation at an upcoming board meeting.
>> Sure. We'd be glad to have glad to have you here and review that with you.
>> Right.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Patton, financial report. Is that Neie?
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman.
>> Morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Just going to share my screen.
As of March 31, 2026, the board's available and committed balances are as follows.
In the secondary aquifer fund, uh you have a cash balance of roughly 41.7 million, a committed balance of roughly 23 million, and an uncommitted balance of approximately 18.7 million. In the revolving development account, you have a cash balance of roughly 35.6 million, a committed balance of roughly 25 2 million and an uncommitted balance of roughly 10.4 million with a loan principal outstanding of 25 26 million roughly. Then in the water management account you have a cash balance of a little over 331 million a total committed funds of 335,685,000 and an uncommitted funds of roughly -4.5 million.
And in the ARPA appropriations, you can see here that that that you have been be receiving the full 250 million of ARPA and that to date uh total of that 250 million has been obligated with 161 million expended and a remaining 88.9 million a committed balance of 88.9 million. And with that, I would stand for any questions. Hey uh board members, any questions for Neie on the financial report?
>> Chairman Neely have to be released by the new year.
>> That is correct. Mr. Chairman, board member Barker, >> any concern that we're not going to be able to do that?
>> I do not believe so. I think we're on track to expend all those funds.
>> Okay. All right. Cynthia said yes. So, for the record.
>> Okay. All right. That will do with that.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you, Neie. Um, now we are down to agenda item seven, Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and we will have the part B of that presentation.
>> We will, uh, Loretta Strickland, uh, who is with the commission staff will give us that that presentation.
>> Welcome.
>> Thanks.
Is there a clicker?
>> You're going to do it for me. Okay.
Okay.
Thank you. Yes. My name is Lora Strickland. I'm the a program manager with the commission and I've been with the commission since 2011 and I appreciate your time on the agenda today to share information with you about the commission's program water quality program for agriculture and that's a lot to say so we're just going to call it walkpaw from here on out. Um walkpaw was established by the legislature in 2000.
Prior to walkpaw was a program called sawquip which was the state agricultural water quality program and it implemented projects from 1981 up until 2000 when walkpot took its place. So walkpaw works to conserve and enhance Idaho's water resources by providing financial incentives for conservation agricultural and um grazing conservation improvements.
So it is primarily implemented through the 50 soil and water conservation districts. And I'm sorry you missed George's presentation. He had some great information on the history of the districts and the great work that they do. Uh but we this program is implemented through them and then in turn they turn around and contract with land owners in their areas to implement the on the ground conservation.
During that timepaw had an annual appropriation of roughly 1 million. uh but unfortunately it fell victim to the economic downturn and went unfunded from 2012 to 2022.
And in that change during the 2022 legislative session when Wakpa was revitalized with a significant $5 million supplemental enhancement to our budget and for the next three years the legislature along with Governor Little continue to support the program and the total recent investment has been $12 million for Wakpa.
Thank you. So over the past few years uh we have worked to adjust the walkpaw guidelines to reflect those fluctuating uh funding levels and just to ensure that we are delivering the most effective program that we can. So under the current guidelines walkpaw cost share is capped at $75,000 per project.
Projects must have 35% matching funds which can be state federal or of course the land owner. Uh walkpaw is often leveraged with other state and federal funding. And I think this photo is a great example of a good collaboration and leveraging. It's the Galloway Dam rehabilitation and restoration project in Weezer, which leveraged Wakpa with Idaho Water Resource Board funds, aging infrastructure funds.
Uh as mentioned before, Wakpot is primarily implemented with the 50 soil and water conservation districts who turn around and contract with eligible participants who are land owners or operators with an agricultural or grazing interest, the local irrigation districts and canal companies and districts. Up to 10% of the cost share contract can be used by sponsors for administration.
So, walk has been a very successful program. In the four years that we have had funding, we received 274 project proposals requesting 26.5 million in walk. So, needless to say, we had our work cut out for us to narrow that down to what we could fund. So, we evaluated three key areas of each proposal that we received. We looked at the project sponsorship and the capacity and more specifically what engineering has been done on the project. What engineering needs are still there? Can it be completed in the time frame that we are given to spend walkpaw? We also look at the project effectiveness and we rate the projects on their potential to improve water quality or conserve water and of course we rate them on their public benefit. So we also look at the funding requests and the partners and we want to make sure that the budget is reasonable for the projected benefits.
So, of those 274 projects submitted, we were able to fund 134. And at the time of this presentation, 121 were complete.
And I'm proud to say I'm up to 128 now.
So, we only have six more to go. Um, and I think it is worth noting that in the four years of Lockpath, every conservation district in the state of Idaho submitted a project proposal. And I think that really speaks to the program's versatility and our statewide relevance. So in total, we have approved projects with 47 of the 50 conservation districts.
And as mentioned earlier, uh, WAKPA really benefits from strong partner support and when we're able to leverage funds. So the partners that we have worked with include DEEQ, NRCS, USDA NRCS, the Idaho Water Resource Board, local irrigation and drainage districts, and of course land owners. So working with the partners and land owners, we have achieved 32 million in conservation investments with our 12 million. And I'm excited to wrap up all the projects so I can calculate that return on investment because I think it's going to be pretty.
So to give you a clear picture of uh the types of projects that WalkPaw has funded over the last four years, I've taken our projects and group them into six categories and I'll go through those in the next few slides. Uh we have invested 3.83 3 million in irrigation infrastructure. So these projects include automating headgates, lining or piping canals, laterals, ditches, and completing dam upgrades such as the Galloway. Uh another successful collaboration project with the Idaho Water Resource Board was the Sunny Dell Irrigation Project in Madison County where two newly automated headgates now adjust those flow rates multiple times per day without lag and result in significant water savings for their system. Uh the second photo is the Salmon River Canal Company 1723 pipeline near Hollister where Walkpaw funds helped to modernize their delivery system by helping them install 13,000 ft of pipeline. So helping them towards their long-term goal of a fully pressurized system to eliminate seepage and evaporation and reduce energy demands.
We've invested 4.2 million in onfield onfarmm improvements with the land owners. Many of these projects include our surface to sprinkler conversions, mostly center pivots. We've also gone and retrofitted existing center pivots with the Lisa nozzles, which are the low elevation spray application nozzles.
We've had drip irrigation and then just also improved water delivery on the farm. A great project we work with was an irrigation water management project in the gooding with the gooding soil and water conservation district. So that district worked with 16 different land owners and deployed 70 soil moisture sensors across 2,800 acres. So that provided those farmers with that real-time soil moisture data. And I just I really appreciated the outreach and education component of that project along with the water efficiency.
So livestock BMPS, we have invested 700 over $750,000 in livestock BMPPS. The types of projects under this category are riparian fencing such as this picture which is from Meadows Valley in Adams County where we installed 6,500 ft of fencing along the Little Salmon River to exclude livestock until that riparian recovers and establishes and then it will allow for a managed grazing of that corridor.
Virtual fencing is a newer technology that several ranchers are starting to utilize and benefit from and it really gives ranchers unprecedented control of uh their grazing management systems. And in this photo, I thought it was kind of funny. Uh the rancher is testing the collars in the during winter feeding time. So, he's only allowing those cows to eat certain rows of hay. So, I thought it was kind of was a good training exercise. And so this summer, those collars are going to be reprogrammed uh to protect the sensitive areas, riparian areas of Seaman's Creek in Blaine County. And so other types of livestock BMPs that we have worked with our off-site stockwater developments and concrete feeding pads in North Idaho.
We have invested about 1.1 million in stream bankank and erosion BMPs. These projects include the installation of stream barbs and other stabilization treatments, uh, beaver dam analogs, and replacing undersized and diminished culverts that are causing erosion. Uh, here in this set of photos with the stream bank, this is some stream bank erosion on Creek in Ola. A rock rip wrap was placed with willow cutings incorporated. And as you can see, one year later, those willow cutings are doing very well. And I think it survived two pretty good flood events. So, it's holding up fantastic. Uh, we also, like I said, work to fund critical culbert replacements and they're the ones that are causing current erosion and their failure will cause even more catastrophic erosion.
We have invested 350,000 in soil health BMP projects. These projects include the use of bio stimulants to stimulate the beneficial microbes and plant growth and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers. So these practices work to build soil health which will reduce the amount of sediment leaving the field which directly impacts water quality. Um another example one of our districts the Kuster soil and water conservation district used walkpaw funds to help them purchase a no till drill for the land owners in their area. the no tail practices have been not been widely adopted in that area due to the limited availability of equipment. So by customer being able to purchase for their land owners uh it was very impactful for soil health in their area.
And last but not least 973,000 of WACA funds have been directly invested into our local soil conservation districts through those administration funds. This helps them build capacity to carry out their local programs and priorities. I started my career working with my local soil conservation district in 2004. So, I have seen firsthand the depth of knowledge and conservation commitment that these board members bring to those local decisionmaking.
Uh for generations, Idaho's soil conservation district supervisors have been working quietly in the background uh promoting natural resource stewardship across the state. And I say generations because the man in the far left hand corner in the black and white photo uh was the first president of the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts and my great-grandfather.
>> So he's my makes me fourth generation in my family to work with soil conservation. Every generation in between has either served with Weer River or the Spa Creek soil conservation districts. So I often say that working in soil conservation is a little bit like owning cows. I don't know if any of you own cows, but once you own them, it's a part of you and it's hard to walk away from. So last year, this middle photo, we celebrated Artville's 50th year of dedication to conservation in Idaho. Art serves with the Squawk Creek Conservation District, and he's just one example of the many supervisors who have devoted decades of service to their local districts, and like Eric said, he's been with us 14 years, and that's that's a long, long time.
So, it's their long history of working directly with the land owners uh that makes them excellent stewards of walkpaw funds and has made my job easier as the program manager.
And with that, um I hope I've given you a kind of understanding of the things that we've been able to fund with that 12 million that was entrusted to us by the Idaho legislature. And I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
>> Hey board members, any questions? Brian O.
>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman Loretta. So, so I've worked with the three conservation districts in Clint Falls County.
>> Okay.
>> And we've done a lot of block by and so and equip for a long time, but the we've always partnered with NRCS that they're leol and they've lost so much staff. There's no engineers to get the projects out on the ground. Is there an engineer or >> chair engineer? Go right ahead. Um, so we do have one staff engineer and he gets pretty um spread thinly across the state, but Walkcloud will help. It can be a VMP to pay an engineer. So I know in your area we did just pay an engineer to help design and certify a um project down there. So it's included in the actual project cost.
The other question, the virtual fence, you know, I've through DEQ and other things, I've seen a lot of riparian fences build and some of them have not held up very good. So costwise, the virtual fence, I assume, is pretty good.
And have they worked good in in riparian areas?
>> I hear that they have and I think their costs are coming down. There's ones now that don't need the towers to operate is what I understand. So I think that's going to reduce the costs of those significantly. Uh like there's a project in my area that I'm aware of. I mean they grace 4,000 acres and so they're finding it very cost beneficial to use those instead of maintaining fence on 4,000 acres.
>> Yeah. I think I'm excited for that technology.
>> And and when you decide you want to graze the riparian area and turn the signal off, the cows go in there or does it take them?
>> Yeah. I don't know if maybe they're programming certain areas that they can access or we have those off-site water developments. It's not like a red light, green light that they has to see to go past. Anyway, that's fine. Thanks.
>> Okay, any other questions?
Okay, lots of good work out on the ground and u uh glad to have you uh part of uh our group now.
>> Okay, thank you.
Okay, next up, Big Wood Water Right Accounting Program.
>> Yes, >> update. Heidi Smith, who's with our hydra the department's hydrarology section, will give the board an update on the development of a water ride accounting program for the big wood base.
>> Okay. Good morning, Heidi.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
It's good to be here.
>> Okay.
Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. So, uh, my name is Heidi Smith and I'm a hydraologist here at IDWR.
And, uh, we will be focusing on the Big Wood River Wateride Accounting Project update this morning. And I thought I would start by taking a look at this photograph. It is a photo of Silver Creek and it is at the base of uh, the the excuse me, the Belleview Triangle.
Very beautiful out there. See? So, I go right.
Click it right there. Let's see.
>> We'll wing it. Okay.
So, uh I thought I'd start off with the water district. Um taking a p peek at the map of the water district and what we see is the water district. Um the yellow line is the boundary of this water district. And we have conducted um we've created this accounting program using all of the uh water bound excuse me water bodies that are within this boundary. uh the Big Wood River, the Magic Reservoir, Silver Creek, Little Wood River, as well as the Mad River.
So, uh, before we get into the details of our um of the the program, I thought I would expand out and talk about the accounting programs that we've actually completed already. And those are the Snake River in 198 or 1977, the Bear, Boisey, Payat, Big Lost River in 93. So it's about been about 30 years since we have created an accounting program and um and they all use the same fundamental methods to distribute natural flow. So this is the water that uh rights um are allocated to. Um and then and then each of these basins are customized based on the unique water situation within each boundary or sorry within each uh water district. And so for this specific um for this specific uh program that we conducted um we have written it in Excel and the reason why we started in Excel is because we are um we're wanting it to be in easily easily modified easily shared um between water master and hydraologists. So we can we can easily modify it and then at the end of it when it's finalized we will migrate this program into C. So C is more of a uh a stable environment and it's less affected by a click of a button. So it's it's less um it's essentially more stable.
And then before I yeah so uh in general I just wanted to point out that the the reason why we do accounting is um it provides a clear and daily reporting in surface water supply and use which is a good tool for um for times of scarcity. So, >> sorry.
>> It's okay. It's a moment to pause.
>> And I just I don't know if I I mentioned this um that this is helpful for water county is helpful for uh systems that have reservoirs. So it it helps to accounting will help to separate the natural flow and the stored flow um within the channel. So yeah, okay.
So, I just described why why we use accounting programs throughout Idaho, but specifically for this program um for this situation in in the three-year extension of the Big Wood River Groundwater Management Area Plan, a large title, uh we were directed by the um we were the d the department was directed to develop this prototype. And um before I get into the details of our specific accounting program that we developed um I thought I would give you some definitions. So what is water accounting?
It is a computer program that helps water masters administer water rates by calculating natural flow uh allocating this natural flow to the water rights based on their priority dates using uh the prior appropriation doc doctrine and it focuses on uh irrigation and reservoir rights but it does not include domestic groundwater and non-conumptive rights and we always say that accounting is after the fact so that means that after water has been diverted, we then run the accounting program and the accounting program uh separates the the use as either natural flow or stored flow.
So the first Thank you Miley. Uh so the first um the first step that we took to to create our program was that we compiled all the surface water rights and related them to diversions. So the image on the right is so all of the dots are diversions. So each dot represents one diversion and in each diversion there is a stack of water rights that's associated with the diversion. So that was our first step and we wanted to you see that they're all colored differently and the reason why that is so is uh we wanted to see the results. So so we get to see them in different functional groups. And so we have Silver Creek in red, Little Wood in yellow, upper Bigwood River in Magic Reservoir in blue, and then lower Big Wood River in green, and then a little section in the Mad, which is white.
>> Yeah, the I think in the Silver Creek there are some water rights that were originally water rights, groundwater. Are those part of the accounting or those deal?
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Barker. Um, yes, those are included.
So, those those are taken those are taken out the effect of those are taken out of the of the program.
So, they're they're not so they're we don't um we don't include those in accounting as far as delivering net flow. Those are not they're essentially not included in the accounting program.
They don't have an effect on the on the surface.
>> Well, they do. So, so it does. So, when when the water um is pumped in and then taken out, that does if we wouldn't if we don't add and remove the water at the right time um then it would be in in the in the channel. And so, um essentially we we remove the effect of those before we run the account program.
Just to further confuse the issue, these rights that were once surface water rights that got converted to groundwater rights, do they pump back into Silver Creek as an exchange or they just they chose to divert groundwater rather than surface water?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And they somehow or another were able to convert their surface water right into a groundwater right >> back in the old days. Did they have to advance their priority or did they >> No, they got they keep their priority but they are certain not >> okay and and and if I heard correctly you're saying you do not you are not including those in this water rights accounting program or you are >> we are we are re first of all The first step is we we remove the water that has been added from these exchange rights.
We've remove it from the flow essentially. And so then and then the accounting program does not include those rights.
>> Okay. Does that >> make sense to you?
>> And Jeff, I believe that those are curtailed based on their surface water right which in some cases is not the most senior surface water right. So, for instance, this year, I suspect most of those are already already off those conversions because if you had a real good senior, right, you didn't usually want to um you know, you didn't have the need. I mean, it meant you were right on Silver Creek. That's the way I see it in a way up there is >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry to disrupt you. Oh, >> that's okay.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Having some technical difficulties anyway.
>> Um Oh, we've Okay. It's just nice to >> That's okay. I do have a a flash drive that helps >> I think we're good.
>> Presentation has technical difficulties as well as does the water administration in order valley. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> The steps more.
>> Okay. Is this is this the slide you want to be on or we where we need to be?
>> This is perfect. Yes, you can determine.
>> Okay. So, uh the second step after after we related our our rights with the with the uh diversions is that we defined the reaches within the entire system. So, the image to the right is the entire water district and then the image on the left is just a zoomed in section of that that red box. But we define the reaches so that we can compute natural flow at different parts in the system. And so we have we ended up with 14 uh 14 reaches where we calculate natural flow and we divide our reaches up um with the use of gauges that that exist in the in the in the uh water district.
Mr. >> Yeah, Dean.
>> Yeah, I have a question. So, you don't have any that accounting doesn't take in anything into consideration of the upper wood >> things that come out of Lwood reservoir, >> correct?
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
Okay. Then the third step of after defining the reaches and calculating so that we can c calculate natural flow at each reach is that we compiled input data that we will use or that we used to calculate this natural flow. And so the three data sets are diversion flows from DWR central. This image to the right is a screenshot of where the water masters actually enter in the D the data in DWR central. and then we extract it from there. Uh also to compute natural flow we need stream flow from gauges and then also magic reservoir.
And so um so I just want to pause here and emphasize that the more cons um more more accurate and complete these data sets are the more accurate and complete natural flow will be.
That's his throw.
>> Are are these gauges are they uploaded to your C sharp software automatically or do you you have to get the information and key it in?
>> We have to um we have to uh that that's a long process. So basically we we we will work with um OITS at IDWR to to make that happen. And I think that that's a kind of a yeah a lengthy process that but that will be at the very end.
>> So so right now the water master is manually recording each of these diversions on a daily basis.
>> Correct. Yes. Yes. Um they they record they record let's see I don't I don't know exactly how often they record the the diversion um the diversion um flows but but I do know that it's they're doing the best they can um and they they they do it regularly. It's a, you know, it's >> set aside the daily part, but they actually go out and measure the flow, then go sit down at a terminal and input that data.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, uh, the fourth step is that we we compiled all of our data and and came up with natural flow um in Excel. And so this was this was kind of the the the longest process or the longest step in the process. But but the end result is this water this daily um water accounting report. And uh this is something this is a report that is familiar to all water masters and all hydraologists at IDWR that actually deal with this program. Um and so we decided to stick with the same format and uh up at the top is the reach section. So we are we are calculating natural flow, stored flow >> and then also and then also um I can remember it um uh stored flow if you go go back to one >> but the the upper the upper section is we're calculating natural flow at um per reach and so so it calc the the Excel um file ex calculates natural flow, stored flow, and then the last right that receives natural flow. And so that's that's a a a summary per reach. And then that lower section is just a kind of a a finer scale of these data. So natural flow, stored flow per diversion. Okay.
and then hopping to the timeline. So, so far we have completed the prototype. We completed that this spring. So, it is it is um finished in Excel. Uh but this upcoming year, so the the blue text are milestones for the rest of this year.
Um, we will be doing the prototype testing this irrigation season. We will, uh, review the changes we've made in the fall of 2026 and then we will incorporate enhancements after this review. So um those enhancements would include things like uh including milner fitting storage water and understanding which diversions actually utilize this water as part of the exchange condition.
And then and then we will uh utilize this program next year. And that just means that we will be running the accounting report more regularly and >> um offering it to the the water master who um can use it to help administer water in in the in the basin. And then finally uh we will be uh migrating this program to C a more stable program that we can utilize later.
>> Okay. And that's it. Um >> okay board members any questions? Any additional thoughts?
>> Mr. >> Sure. I think this is a great looks like a great deal and maybe we'll give some clarity to what goes on in that system.
I think >> Mr. Chairman, he and I have been going to a lot of these big wood meetings and >> it's kind of a mad scramble this year because the forecast was a lot better than the ballot has been and so Sunny's been um a lot of pailing already of of later writes which later writes in there are 1890 or even I think even 1886 might be off now but you know there has been some snow up high that's holding up a little bit but Silver Creek is in very well.
It's an interesting.
>> Okay, Paty, I just want to thank you for unraveling this bundle of stinks.
>> Pat's been going too there.
>> Yeah, that's my own home area.
>> It's It's been fun. It It's It's It has felt a little bit like um building building a castle. So it's there are so many parts to it. So it's been really fun. So >> thank you.
>> Okay. Yes. Thank you very much. Lots of work, lots of effort, but once it's completed and operational, it will certainly aid in how water rights are administered and I think make it much easier uh on the water master and those involved. So >> Okay.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> All right. Thank you very much, >> Mr. Chairman. Would just like to follow up. Thank Heidi for the presentation. I think one point that she kind of glossed over at the end is that the final product migrating to C is very much dependent on support from its currently working with its on the the database for the monthly diversion or groundwater pumping and uh our experience with that has shown is that sometimes we feel like we're not their top priority.
>> Okay. Uh I I I think there are some issues there that we need to work with uh the state to resolve. Uh so just to for instance if it does not have uh the final version of this ready can we can we operate in Excel for a season if we have to realize it's still supposed to be up here. Um, yes. So, we we can we can use Excel for as long as as we need.
>> It it's just not a long-term solution.
>> Sure. Understood.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, we will we will continue uh to work uh with the state to to get the technology in place that makes this a long-term stable program.
If we whatever needs to happen to accomplish that, I think the board's willing to assist in that uh to the appropriate degree.
Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> We put money into the sea, right? Is this the last year?
>> I believe I believe the >> I thought we renewed it.
>> Yeah. the contribution was re-uped uh for the next duration of the groundwater management plan.
>> Mr. Chairman, the current plan is from 2025 to December 31 of 2027. Um so we're in the second of the three-year plan and I think Heidi alluded to this, but this piece is a central part of uh the plan.
There's a number of action items in the plan that identify bettering our understanding of the of the system, being able to administer and account for it in a more accurate way to give the water users confidence that when they have to turn off uh because of elements of the plan that there's a lot of good science uh in math backing those decisions.
>> Okay. Thank you, director.
>> Mr. share.
>> Yeah.
>> Heidi, is there checks and balances built into your Excel spreadsheet just to make sure that numbers don't accidentally get deleted, changed or rows added or >> So we right now uh right now we are in um essentially we can freeze the program.
So no no one can actually change the the cells. So the only person that think can change change the program would be the person who's building it. So it can be protected that way. Um although it it ends up being a really big program and so um so yes uh it to answer your question we it it can be it it is protected at this point. So but um we are in we are in constant modification at this point of the program. Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. All right.
We'll let you go sit down this time and we promise to let you stay there. Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, Mr. Patton. South Fork Snake River Basin Plan.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, you have a resolution in front of you. I think Milon's pulling it up on the screen with a due pass recommendation uh from the planning committee uh in this matter.
Okay, Mr. Barker, that's your committee.
Uh, you reviewed this and your committee recommended uh uh this resolution to the full board. Do you have any comments?
Uh, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. The committee reviewed and recommended that we move ahead uh with this resolution.
Um, and the essence of it is that the old uh Southport plan was tied to a specific environmental assessment that had been updated and the goal of this resolution is to say that our Southport plan for dredge mining in some of the tributaries needs to be in tune with the current resolution. And so we are going to interpret selfwork plan to uh to rely upon the then current environmental assessment of pred so that we don't have to change the plan every time the environment assessment is updated. And so the committee unanimously recommended that we uh recommended to the board that the board approve this resolution.
Okay, we have a resolution before us.
Uh, any questions? Mr. >> Chairman, I would move that we the board stop this resolution.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Uh, any discussion on the motion? Uh, there being none, I think we'll have a roll call vote on this. Mileen, uh, if you could please.
>> Mr. Barker.
>> I.
>> Miss Cole Hansen.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Gibbs.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. McMahon.
>> Hi. Mr. Olmstead.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Stevenson.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Van Stone.
>> Hi, >> Chairman Rayold.
>> I motion carries. The resolution is adopted.
Okay. Next up, uh we have a loan application from the Dalton Water Association.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh you also have a resolution in this matter uh with a due pass recommendation from the finance committee.
>> Uh staff is available to answer any questions. Uh but you have the resolution in front of you. Okay, we have a resolution in front of us. Uh, any comments? Uh, Mr. Chair, >> from the finance committee?
>> Yes, the finance committee did recommend this pass with the due pass have a due pass recommendation. We vetted it thoroughly in the finance committee meeting and so I would make a motion to pass this resolution.
>> Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Uh, there being none, we'll proceed to vote. If we could have a roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Barker.
>> Hi.
>> Miss Cole Hansen.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Gibbs.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. McMahon.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Olmstead.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Stevenson.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Van Stone.
>> I.
>> Chairman Rayold.
>> I. Motion carries.
Okay. Next up, we have the ESPA Surface Water Coalition Operational Efficiency Program. Menopi Irrigation District proposal.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, likewise. you have a a uh resolution in front of you with a due pass recommendation from finance committee in this matter as well. Again, staff's available to answer any questions, but um the resolution is in front of you if you choose to act on it.
>> Okay. Uh board members, do you have any questions on this resolution or the action proposed?
>> Ryan, >> my only question, Mr. Chairman, is Joanne. Did you get rid of that recipe for your cement cookies?
>> I did.
>> Okay.
All right.
>> Wasn't there two parts to this original application that we paired down to one part or is that I'm thinking of something different?
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah, I I I believe you're correct.
>> Okay.
Okay. Um, entertain a motion to adopt.
>> Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt this resolution.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Uh, seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Mileen, if you could call the role, please.
>> Mr. Barker.
>> I.
>> Miss Cole Hansen.
>> I.
>> Mr. Gibbs.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. McMahon.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Olmstead.
>> Mr. Olmstead.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Stevenson.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Van Stone.
>> Hi, >> Chairman Rabel.
>> I motion carries.
>> Okay. Uh next up, we have a regional water sustainability priority list.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh moving on to uh item number A. Uh this deals with the criteria for the regional water sustainability uh priority uh project list. And uh again uh the finance committee vetted this issue at length and you have a resolution that modifies uh the uh criteria uh to be placed on the the list and uh that was passed by the finance committee with a a due pass recommendation.
>> Okay. Uh board members any questions on this resolution?
>> Mr. Chairman, it might not be a bad idea to have somebody summarize what those updates on for the record.
>> Okay, we can do that.
>> Y we'll have Wesley Hippie make that summary, Mr. Chair.
>> And by >> Yes, >> if we go down to the actual criteria.
And so the long and short of it, what this criteria does is it adds a little more definition to um what the board's looking for as far as regional water um sustainability applications.
And so if we go down just a little further, a little bit more Eileen. Um so so stop right here. A and so this first part um just covers here's the type of projects that you're looking for and kind of provides some examples. If you go to the next part of it, please.
Um so this next part is the eligible entities and so there was some discussion um on this one when it was presented at committee we incorporated those changes and so that's probably a good thing to kind of look at and make sure does this cover all the entities that you think would uh uh apply to these. One thing to keep in mind, the thing that we really stressed in this criteria was that these were regional projects and that was the the primary purpose of them. And so this was at least staff's um uh attempt of capturing who we um would think those major players um would be. And so I stop there and see if the board members have any questions about those or if there needs to be something added.
>> Indeed, Mr. Chairman Wes, so what would be the definition?
Two of them, I guess. One of them, what would be the definition of a regional water supply organization?
>> That was intentionally left u vague.
>> Um so there's not a definition on that.
And partly we're looking at that for when not knowing what projects are going to come into the future. And there's times when there's organizations that are developed and the example I would give is like if you look at the Mountain Home uh project, what we're looking at there is for that group to come together and basically form an organization.
>> Okay.
>> But they're again regional in scope. So we put that in there to just handle those things that could potentially come up in the future that we can't foresee at this point in time.
>> Thank you.
And did you have another one that you had a question on?
>> Well, and I guess municipalities, I think we've talked about that before. Uh what is cons, you know, are counties considered municipalities or probably not?
>> The uh so the original intent of this and it come up and it did come up in the committee meeting and so if you want some more definition of this, we can definitely add it. The original intent was incorporated cities as as being the definition of a municipality. So counties are not included on this. And so if that's something that you want added, we sure could.
>> I think it probably if region organizations and municipalities, I think probably is fine. But I just >> absolutely.
>> Okay. Anything else?
uh not to pick nets but as a uh former general manager of a water and sewer district >> and there's also recreational water and sewer district if you wanted to include those or if that would be necessary I don't know >> staff is completely open um you know um so if you if you think that those organizations that there is the potential of them coming in with a regional project we could definitely add It's probably high low, but I think you know just municipal pretty much.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I I think we're okay for now. If we find ourselves in a situation where uh there's a proposal out there that doesn't quite fit, but the board feels like it should, we could at that time make an adjustment, I believe.
>> Absolutely. And that's Yes, that will definitely work. Um okay. So then the next part is what the eligible projects are.
And so this gives us kind of a list of what um type of projects would go into it. I don't know if there's anything you want to cover there. I just really tried to stress that the primary purpose was the regional impact.
Um, are there any questions with that part of it?
>> If not, >> we're okay.
>> Awesome. And so this next part we can actually move through and you can go to part three because the next part is just what the applicant would um have to submit to us. And then this next part is it it looks at what the board it's kind of their base of what they cons take into account when they're considering these projects. And so one thing that was added was that obviously the state water plan is what the board will take into account. And then it also lists some of the resolutions um the the joint resolutions from the legislature that kind of guides what the board's um looking for in these type of uh projects.
Um and then the part the this last part that's just kind of going into a little more detail for the applicants of the type of support that the board can provide. One things we make very clear that getting on the list doesn't guarantee board funding. Um but it it does put it to the board's attention and provides um the um the board can provide others um support than just providing the financial end of it.
And that is a very brief summary of it.
Okay.
Any questions for Wes regarding the proposed criteria?
>> Chairman, I would move that the board adopt the resolution changing the criteria.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
Okay. Then it looks like the next uh item is the Winchester Dam repair.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh and my wing's pulling up a resolution that uh came from the finance committee with a due pass recommendation would allocate $1 million for the repair of Winchester Dam located uh near the town of Winchester in North Central High. Um, this would be part of a a dam is owned by state of Idaho through fishing game. Uh, this would be part of the multi- agency funding package for the repair of the dam that would include the water resource board, fishing game, and the department of parks.
>> Okay. Uh, board members, any questions on the proposal?
>> Mr. Mr. Is this dam have any hydrop power associated with it? Just a reservoir dam it's an old mill pond.
>> Yeah. Okay. And it feeds uh >> creek.
>> Oh l all the way down to clear water.
Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Just a comment. I again studying last night. I've never seen a more thorough bunch of engineering diagrams for a pretty small damage building was really it was really engineered this repair project.
>> Okay.
Uh what's your pleasure board action on the resolution?
>> Mr. Mop this resolution.
>> Okay.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution.
Uh, any discussion on the motion? If not, we'll proceed to vote. Mileen will need a roll call vote on this.
>> Mr. Barker, >> I.
>> Miss Cole Hansen, >> I.
>> Mr. Gibbs, >> hi.
>> Mr. McMahon. Hi, >> Mr. Olmstead.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Stevenson.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Vanstone.
>> Hi, >> Chairman Rayold.
>> I. Motion carries.
Okay. Next up, we have the Mountain Home Plateau Aquafer Regional Water Sustainability Project Funding request.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This uh this request comes from Elmore County to uh help support some of the projects that they have currently underway uh where they're doing the uh design engineering environmental compliance with um both their South Fork uh Boisee River diversion project, Snake River project and and some other items. Uh again, this was vetted at the finance committee and the resolution comes with a due pass recommendation uh for about 1.1 million in funded support from the allocation that's been made to the water management accounts.
>> Okay. Uh board members doesn't all doesn't allocate any money to any specific project. Correct.
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, there is a a list of projects that it does allocate the money to uh that's included in their their uh proposal materials.
>> But don't we have to make a decision about how much money to put to what project or not?
>> Uh that was included. Actually, I'll ask Mary to address that question. She's the he >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. the um so the projects that we're funding are actually described in the resolution under 1, two, and three beginning on row or line 16. So the south fork we would be doing for 57,000.
The irrigation district canal system would be the 158,000 and then the pipeline and pump station alternative study from the Snake River would be 1.1 million and this is or 435,000 and then the total funding is 1.1 million >> for all three proposals.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Does that answer your question?
>> Might so Mr. Chairman Mary, sorry.
>> Go ahead.
>> So that 57,000 NEPA that is kind of on top of all the NEA we've done on Anderson Ranch. This is for the pump station on Anderson Ranch or is this way off on that?
>> I believe you're correct. This is what they're at the they're above 60% almost at the 90% design level and then they'll go into the NEPA. Th this is this is for Elmore County's water delivery project.
Not doesn't have anything to do with the Anderson Ranch Dam.
>> Yeah.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> But but the pump is the pump station is right above Anderson Ranch Dam, right?
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Question.
>> Mr. Chairman, uh, I just wanted to point out in the finance committee that we I was concerned about them not having their entity form formulated to handle all the projects for not only the county but the irrigation district, the city, Elmore County in general. And uh, we asked finance committee asked Elmore County to draft a resolution saying that they would be responsible for for the reporting and the fund funds received for these projects. They passed a resolution and was included in our board packet.
>> Thank you.
>> So pleased to see that.
>> Yep.
>> Yeah. So, so we we have Elmore County's commitment to be the responsible party.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Anything else?
>> Mr. Chair, I move that we pass this resolution.
>> Okay. It's been moved to adopt the resolution. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
>> Uh, there being none, we'll proceed to vote. Mileen, if you could call the role one more time, please.
>> Mr. Barker, >> I.
>> Miss Cole Hansen, >> I.
>> Mr. Gibbs, >> hi.
>> Mr. McMahon, >> hi.
>> Mr. Olmstead, >> I.
>> Mr. Stevenson, >> hi.
>> Mr. Van, >> hi.
>> Chairman Rayold, >> I. Motion carries.
>> Okay, we're doing incredible board. Um, we are. Uh the next item is grant program criteria and timing.
>> Yes.
>> Who's handling that?
>> Chairman, um I'm going to ask Mary to come come back to the podium. Uh, you do have a resolution again with a due pass re or I guess a couple of them with a due pass recommendation from the finance committee, but it may be worth having Mary walk through some of the uh proposed changes in the grant programs and and the timing uh changes that are being considered for application periods.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah, if you could do that, Mary, that'd be great.
>> Yeah, sure thing. Uh Mileen, if you could go back up to page 211 to my briefing memo for the timing. This one's just an administrative action. There's not a resolution that's attached with this. And uh we're going to go one more criteria one more up during uh the March meeting whenever I had presented the grant program we talked about timing and then during our May uh finance committee meeting we proposed alternative timing for a couple of our grants. One of which so this first table right here this is what our current timing is. And then if we just go to the next page on this memo, we'll see the timing that we're proposing, which would change groundwater to surface water conversion due dates to the first Friday in July, which will actually be July 10th this year, not the actual first Friday. And then uh we would still award those at the same time as September.
Aging infrastructure, there's no change.
First Friday in August, due date and award in September. And then the telemetry measuring and monitoring. We proposed to open this up beginning July 1 for the fiscal year and have this open year round.
And then our first anticipated uh pres presentation to the board for resolution to award funds would also be in September.
So again, I do not have a resolution for this. Basically, this is an administrative change and if you're okay with that, we'll move forward with these.
>> Okay. I think what staff's looking for is a motion to approve uh uh this change to the criteria.
>> The timing, sir.
>> Timing. Okay.
>> So, move.
>> Second.
>> Okay. All in favor say I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
>> Great.
>> Okay. Um >> so, Mr. chairman this we'll just go on to criteria next if that's okay.
>> Oh okay.
>> So this >> yeah go ahead.
>> This next one is for our criteria updates. We have three criteria that we're proposing to update which was the aging infrastructure the groundwater surface water conversion grant criteria and then measuring and monitoring support grant criteria. Just briefly, the changes that we are considering um is overall formatting all of these the same way so that anytime an applicant looks at one of our criteria, they know exactly where to find the information that they need. And also for us as reviewers, we know what that criteria looks like for scoring and ranking.
Secondly, uh the aging and infrastructure grant criteria. Um, we did have some additional language that has been proposed for projects that expect to reduce incidental recharge and their mitigation requirement for that showing there would be zero impact for groundwater surface water conversion grant criteria. The additional criteria that we added is a list of groundwater rights on the proposed converted lands.
And then for the measuring and monitoring support grant criteria, the additional criteria that we added was actually to open this up statewide. As we discussed during the finance committee meeting, uh there's been measurement orders issued around the state and there is a need outside of the ESPA for folks to be in compliance with these measurement orders and they really could use the funding. And so, uh, we moved forward with proposing opening up measuring and monitoring to the entire state, but there would be a preference and a higher ranking for those that are within the ESPA.
And with that, uh, we could look at any of those changes I highlighted on many materials or just go straight to the resolutions.
>> Okay, Brian, Mr. Chairman, Mary, I think we could go through that criteria on the on the um surface water efficiency program because I think referring to Al's question we paired back that Midoka application because it had the other parts of it had a pretty big impact on recharge wasn't that >> yes originally it had the Fway stand it had a bunch of linings on on some of the some of the some of the other canal structures well actually the canal feeder ditches Right. Uh, Mr. Chairman, Brian, so we are not looking at the criteria for surface water coalition operational efficiencies right now. We actually I presented those in March and that criteria was updated then.
>> Yeah. I just want to point out that we did >> Oh, okay.
>> We did reduce that. Um we staff worked with Midok Irrigation District to change that proposal so it did not impact recharge and the agreements that were around the river.
>> Okay.
You okay Mary?
>> I'm good.
>> All right. Any additional questions on these changes in criteria?
Sounds like it streamlines it, makes it simpler for staff to understand, easier to evaluate applications.
>> Yes.
>> And help the process move forward.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. And hopefully for applicants, we want to make it efficient, an efficient process for them as well.
>> Okay. So, we're looking for another We have a resolution on this. Yes, >> we do. Yes, sir. So, we have three resolutions. One for each of the criteria. The first one would be for the aging infrastructure grant criteria.
>> Okay, Mr. Chairman, I move to approve.
>> Okay, is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
>> Second.
>> Sorry.
>> You're okay.
>> Second criteria is the groundwater to surface water conversion grant criteria.
>> So move. Okay, it's been moved. There second. Any discussion? All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
>> And third and final resolution that I have before you today is the measuring and monitoring support grant criteria.
>> Okay. No resolution before us.
So move.
>> Okay. There second.
>> I'll second.
>> Any discussion?
All in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Okay.
>> All right. Uh I just take everybody's temperature. Are we okay for a while or do we need a break?
>> We're okay.
>> All right. We're rolling. Okay.
>> I'll need one fairly soon, but I'm good for another item or >> Okay.
It's a two-page agenda. We'll we'll we'll find something.
Uh maybe at the bottom of the hour, maybe after this, I don't know. We'll see how long this one takes. Uh fiscal year 27, secondary aquafer planning and management fund budget. Is that going to be Neie?
>> Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. This is another item uh that was vetted at the finance committee. And you have a resolution uh in front of you that would adopt the the secondary aquafer fund budget for fiscal year 27. Uh but I think it's worth uh having Neie briefly walk through uh what that budget looks like.
>> Okay. Can you do that for us? Neie, >> I can do that Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um I'll start off by uh I have projected that budget on your screen. This is attachment attachment A to the resolution we'll look at here in a few minutes. Hopefully you can read that. Um you can see there the estimated carryover from FY2026 as well as the general fund uh that we anticipate getting this year as well as the cigarette tax we anticipate getting this year. And then you can see the recharge conveyance reserve of 3.5 million and then our estimated interest of 750,000.
That's bringing us to a total of 21,713,919.
And we'll start off here with the recharge budget that staff is proposing.
You can see it's broken into several categories, but overall the ESPA managed recharge budget is for 12,150,000.
And again, I would stand for any questions as I go through this.
U moving on to the cloud seating budget.
Again, there's several sections here, but the general takeaway is that the program total is for 5,33,780.
Then moving down into the basin specific line items here for the Treasure Valley.
There's several items here. Uh staff is requesting a total of 620,000 for the Treasure Valley. And in the Raft River, staff is requesting a total of 50,000.
Um in the Port Basin, staff is requesting 150,000. This is to complete that hydraologic study.
In the Bay River Basin, staff is estimating uh uh 200,000 is uh what may be needed. In the Lemhigh Basin, staff is uh recommending 250,000. This would be support for the settlement initiatives.
Moving down to the next page, in the Midnake Basin, there's that um qu water quality monitoring that's annually um done, and that is a $50,000 item. In the Paloo Basin, staff is estimating 100,000 for aquafer monitoring.
As you're aware, the the the department and the board have been developing a groundwater model for the Mountain Home Basin. Uh staff is estimating 250,000 for year three of four in the development of that model.
In the in the Big Gloss Basin, staff is estimating 130,000 again for that annual monitoring and support of the model.
in the Wood River Basin. There's a couple items here. The first is the conservation infrastructure and efficiency fund. This is the SE that was developed out of the Big Wood River groundwater management plan. Um this is for year two of three and again this is $200,000 a year over three years. And then there's some modeling and analysis for 100. So a total of 300,000 for the Wood River Basin. Then moving down into the hydraology activities, there's three items here for a total of 1.7 million.
And then the statewide item, this is for professional services, primarily media and federal outreach. And there are some administrative items in there as well.
Um staff is estimating $250,000 for that. So that would allocate a grand total of 21,233,780.
And that would leave you with $480,139 or reserved for work in other priority aquifers as uh those if those elements pop up during the next fiscal year. Um I would also highlight here there are asterisks next to some of these items.
All of those asterisks are items where you would have to do an additional approval for staff to be able to expend those funds.
And with that I would stand for any questions and I'd be happy to move to the resolution if you'd like me to.
>> Okay. Any questions on the proposed budget? Brian >> Neely, so did the big wood funds include that finishing up that Cameas Prairie model or is that a separate account?
>> Um, Mr. Chairman, I might let uh staff Well, we don't have staff in here today to answer that.
>> Right. I think the model, the $100,000 is for the canvas model. Pretty sure that's right. I'm pretty sure >> modeling and analysis.
>> Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I think we can move to the resolution.
>> Oh, no. Not a question, but just for future presentations and I don't know done at the finance committee or not, but it helpful for me to know actual last year versus budgeted for next year in in the future. We don't need to go back and do that now, but >> understand.
>> Okay.
>> All right. What What do we got forcing resolution?
There we go.
Starting on line 65. Now therefore, be it resolved the board adopts the fiscal year 27 budget for the secondary fund as shown in attachment A to this resolution. Be it further resolved that the budget may be adjusted based on actual cigarette tax revenues received, interest earnings, and fiscal year 26 carryover. Uh moving to line 71, be it further resolved that expenditures identified in attachment A for managed recharge operations investigations for development of additional ESPA managed recharge capacity may proceed without further approvals provided the board shall be kept apprised.
Um, be it further resolved that expenditures identified in attachment A for monitoring, modeling, hydraology, hydraologic studies, settlement support, federal funding assistance, and administrative costs may proceed without further approval.
Um on line 79, be it further resolved that expenditures identified in attachment A for the cooperative cloud seating program operations and maintenance costs may proceed with no further approvals with the exception of the shared financial participation among the state water users and idle power company. And then uh lastly here on line 84, be it further resolved that the board may modify this budget during the F FY27 at a properly noticed meeting of the board.
>> Okay. Board members, any questions on the resolution?
>> Mr. Chair, >> yes.
>> I move that we adopt this resolution.
>> Okay, there's a motion to adopt the resolution. Is there a second?
>> Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Uh there being none, we'll proceed to vote. We have a roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Barker, >> hi.
>> Miss Cole Hansen, I >> Mr. Gibbs, >> hi.
>> Mr. McMahon, >> hi.
>> Mr. Olmstead, >> hi.
>> Mr. Stevenson, >> hi.
>> Mr. Van Stone, >> hi.
>> Chairman Rabolde, >> I. Motion carries.
>> Okay. Um >> I suggest maybe one more and then break.
>> Okay, one more and then we'll have a break.
um fiscal year 27 water management account spending plan.
>> Yes, this is another item that was vetted to the finance committee, Mr. Chairman, and you have a a resolution in front of you with a due pass recommendation from the finance committee. Uh but it's probably um wise having Cynthia walk through uh what that uh spending plan for fiscal year 27 will look like.
>> Right. Good morning, uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh I'm going to go ahead and just uh refer to some of the primary changes that um will be made to the spending plan. Um uh you've been adopting uh changes to the spending plan since uh last year uh the FY26 spending plan. You made various amendments throughout the year based on other funding commitments. Um under this new proposed FY27 uh spending plan, there will be a few specific updates and it will incorporate the uh um the appropriations from this last legislative session. Um so as we discussed at the finance committee, uh Senate Bill 1363 um authorizes transfer of $1 million uh um from the department's general fund to the board's water management account. um for the flood management program that's been going on now since 2019. So that's an additional $1 million that will be incorporated into this spending plan. Um you also uh will receive an additional $30 million uh transfer from the the department's general fund uh for water project development. And so the discussion at the the finance committee was largely surrounding surrounded uh um uh options for allocating those funds uh going into this next fiscal year.
Um so I'll go ahead and and just uh stop on the table that's in your uh your briefing memo that outlines uh some of the the projects and activities that the finance committee discussed allocating funds towards from that $30 million.
that includes um additional $4 million for aging infrastructure grants, um $2 million for uh Bare River Basin activities and projects. You'll be hearing a little bit more about um some of your uh report and um um direction from the legislature to investigate options for um for allocating uh available uh water under the um Bear River Compact. Um, we've also got $8 million that would be uh obligated for additional groundwater to surface water conversion grants or projects in the ESPA.
An additional $10 million to be used towards uh ESPA infrastructure recharge infrastructure. An additional $1 million that would be obligated for uh um measuring measuring and monitoring grants. But in this case, the uh the finance committee discussed making that funding available statewide, whereas uh in the past year uh you've focused your funds in the ESPA.
Uh an additional $4 million for surface water coalition operational efficiencies program. And then as you've just discussed, uh $1 million uh allocation for the Winchester Dam project repair project, which is now u um a regional water sustainability project.
Um, some additional changes to the spending plan or additions would be uh $500,000 to be uh towards the ESPA groundwater measurement database. Um, in the past uh year, you'd uh dedicated $500,000 towards the development of that database and this additional funding will help with um identified uh information technology infrastructure needs. And then finally, um the finance committee recommended adjusting the funding structure associated with the approved Lost Valley Reservoir Company loan. Um the board had authorized approved that loan to be funded both from the water management account and the revolving development account. And so uh we've moved some of this money, the funding uh for that loan into the revolving development account. and uh and um the remaining amount will be funded out of the water management account. And so that allows us to balance the uh um the spending plan. So there is no no um overcommitments.
And so I'll go ahead and move down to the resolution unless board members would like to discuss uh any of the other um recommen you have any questions for Cynthia to this point?
I >> think we're okay.
>> Great.
Okay, I will move down to uh the latter part of the resolution. Uh we've got a number of whereases that document the appropriation to the water management account to date. And uh and so uh in this resolution starting on line uh 75, you'll see a number of resolutions. uh the board in under this uh um this draft, the board would adopt the uh fiscal year 2027 spending plan that is outlined in attachment A. Um the board would also further resolve that the projects identified with an asterisk in the spending plan uh are hereby obligated. the funding associated with those projects will be obligated but uh there's an expectation that um that um project proponents come back to the board for approval of the project plan.
Um the board also resolves it authorizes the chairman or executive manager Brian Patton to execute any necessary agreements or contracts for the purpose of this resolution.
And uh it also allows for um the the spending plan uh water management account funds to offset any um additional expenses associated with your ARPA approved projects.
And um and then finally uh this resolution um uh states that it will automatically be amended to reflect any additional expenditures that are approved under future board resolutions.
And um uh you'll see if we go down further that you've got attachment A that the board can re review and I can certainly walk through any of the parts of that um attachment.
>> Okay. Uh board, what's your pleasure? Do you want to see the attachment?
I just take a couple minutes.
>> Um what I might do is just highlight the various categories. Um, at the beginning of your spending plan, you have a list of the appropriations to date, uh, including, uh, interest earned as of March 31st. Uh, over $438 million have been, uh, appropriated to this fund. Um, you've got a number of projects that are regional sustainability projects that, um, the board has obligated funds for and the funds expended are are shown here as well.
Um, we've got uh projects that have received funding under the ESPA regional water sustainability program identified in this section.
Um, you've got the al obligations uh to the aging infrastructure grant program including uh the upcoming scheduled program which uh allows for 30 million or obligates $30 million for the next round of aging infrastructure grants.
Um, you've got your flood management grants and this includes uh carryover from previous uh previous years where um we've reconciled closed out projects and those projects that may have come in under budget and this also includes your new uh the FY2027 $1 million appropriation.
Um, this also identifies the loans that are um authorized for funding from the water management account, including the change to the Lost Valley Reservoir Company loan and a reference to the fact that that loan will be paid out of both water management and revolving development accounts.
Um, you've got a list of some of the completed projects to date. And finally at the bottom you'll see that uh that the um obligated amounts uh under this fund are in the amount of uh uh inwork total is about $420 million. Um completed work totals about $19 million and at this time the board does not have a remainder available for obligation.
>> Okay. Any questions on on the account?
>> Okay. Okay, I believe we have a resolution before us that Cynthia has explained to us. Is there any additional questions? Is there a motion to adopt?
>> Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve that resolution for the spending plan for 2027.
>> Okay. All right. Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? No. We'll proceed to vote. If we could have a roll call vote, please.
>> Mr. Barker.
>> I.
>> Miss Cole Hamson.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Gibbs.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. McMahon. I >> Mr. Olmstead >> I >> Mr. Stevenson >> hi >> Mr. Van Stone >> I >> chairman Rayold >> I motion carries >> okay now I think we'll take that break if that'll work for you Brian >> okay five or eight minutes something like that >> yes come to order and uh >> continue with our agenda.
>> Okay. Uh Mr. Patton, the next item is House Concurrent Resolution number 34, Bear River Legislative Report.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mike Morrison will walk through um where we are at with the draft report to the legislature, talk about some due dates, and then uh ask ask you for you're okay to submit the report to the legislature on on the due date.
>> Okay. Welcome, Mike. Um tell us what you got.
>> Uh yes, sir, Mr. Rayold and uh board members, Mr. Weaver, Mr. Patton. Thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk about the report we spent the last couple months preparing.
So, let's see. Let's see if this thing works. It does. Okay. House Concurrent Resolution 34 directs the Idaho Water Resource Board to prepare two reports for the Idaho Legislature. The first is due June 1st, and that's the one I'm going to be talking about today.
There'll be a second report due September 30th, 2026. And I'm assuming I'll be here in September to talk to you about that one, too.
Okay. And the first report shall include the following. Description of current development of the compact allocation waters for Idaho and Utah. Frequency and timing of water supplies in the lower division that are available for further development. and preliminary opportunities for further development of Idaho's compact allocation. That's projects and things that we might want to get into. So, we'll talk about all three of those in the next few minutes.
And the second report when we get to that um we're going to be talking about priorities for projects and I'm going to probably want some help with that and an outline of some of the necessary steps for the Idaho Water Resource Board, Idaho Department of Water Resources and the Idaho Legislature. So that will be coming up in the next report.
So first item, Idaho compact allocation and depletions. And before getting into this, I'd like to thank Ethan Gisler who prepared this proportion or portion of the report. Uh very helpful to us. And uh the B River compact divides the river into three different divisions. There's an upper division and Idaho gets no water from that. So we're not going to talk about it. There's a central division which we get a little bit of water. we get about uh we're allocated 2,000 acre feet and currently we're using over half of it and so we've got about 847 acre feet left but that's pretty small potatoes compared to what we've got in the lower division. Uh we Idaho has an allocation of 125,000 acre feet and we have first dibs on that allocation. So we have first right on that and of that we've got about 108,000 remaining. So we've got a lot there that if there is water we can we could use it. Now just because we have an allocation doesn't mean that there is water. So the other thing that we were asked to look at is frequency and timing of water supply. Mike, before you leave that, have you in that uh central division of the bear, you've got Idaho listed at the bottom. Does Utah and Wyoming have a priority to develop their depletion ahead of us, or are we all on equal footing or do >> I'm going to confess that we didn't take a deep dive into the central division, but I'll ask Mr. Gistler wherever he got to.
>> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I I don't know if there's that provision in there on the first right under the compact for the central. I think it's it's equal across the board.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, uh the second item that we were asked to look at is frequency and timing of water supply. And this right here is something that Ethan also prepared. This is the water that makes it to the Idaho Utah state line. So that's all the water that might be able to get. Um, and as you can see from the bottom uh line there, the median line, typically we are uh we've got about less than 1,000 acre feet a day coming through that. But once in a while we have these very large events. you know, every few years or so, we have these very large events that um we might be able to use some of that water if we had storage for it or some way to use it. Another thing that uh we've got over here is the number of years that uh would have filled. We took a look at 1990 through 2023, which happens to be 34 years.
And in those 34 years, there were 17 years in which we could have used an additional 25,000 acre feet of storage.
Then moving on down to the 100,000 because that's pretty close to our allocation. There were only seven years.
That's about 21% of the time that we could have used 100,000 acre feet of storage or pretty close to our 108,000 acre feet allocation. So um we would not necessarily be able to use that water or have that water available every single year. Quite variable.
Questions about So third thing we asked to look at is different kinds of projects that could help us consume this and kind of taking the variability into account. Uh there's only you know not every project might might be something that we could use.
Um we looked at projects that have been proposed in the past and that have been proposed recently. Most of these and this is the triangles are related to storage. Uh typically they are uh raising dams or making better use of additional dams. Uh one thing that we looked at and and we're going to continue to look at is going to be the unused capacity of Barley Lake Reservoir. And I just said something that I was told not to say told not to call it unused capacity. It does actually get used. Um it just is something that is the uh Pacific Corps actually sets a limit in on March 31st of about 5,918 ft. And that's so that if we have large spring runoff, there's a place for that to go. So in many years that entire capacity does in fact get used, you know, the available capacities etc. And the big problem is being able to figure out in advance what uh what capacity is actually going to be available through the spring that we could carry over. So a lot of challenges to that. There's some challenges on ownership of the dam and the water, that kind of thing, too. So that's something that we're going to want to look at.
Um most of the rest of them are either new dam projects or dam raises. And on the next slide I'll have some rough estimates of cost. We did look at two diversion projects. One is a proposal to divert water to the Portuff River and and that project has been around for a long time. Um there's only about a 20 25 foot raise between where the river here is and where the portf is that we would need to go over. Um it's uh so there are some things about that that that could be kind of promising. The other ones uh take going through the Blackfoot River is probably going to be a little bit bigger lift literally about 400 feet that we have to go up and that could be pretty expensive pushing that much water up a hill. You'd also need to pipe it the whole way instead of being able to use a canal.
Um so we've got those and then the other thing that we've got is aquifer recharge. So aquafer recharge we have started looking that in the bear and things look kind of promising for that.
So, let me take a look at first of all, here's a slide that's got um kind of a summary of all the projects that we have on the that we're looking at and what the potential capacity is that we might be able to get out of it as well as uh the cost in millions. Any questions about that?
>> Board members, any questions? I I was just going to ask about any new storage and I think you've covered that.
>> Uh some of those are new storage.
Caribou, High Onidita, low onidita are there's quite a bit of uh that would be completely new storage from the ground up. The Bear Lake, there's there there's a couple of proposals to raise some dams in there, too.
>> Yes, sir.
>> What What's your creek, Mark? That one that we looked at that >> Trout Creek.
>> Trout Creek. Okay. It's on here. Okay.
Do you have a question, Dean?
>> Yeah. U the fairlet in lake modifications, what would that be?
>> So, we talked about that in the report a little bit. It's it's a proposal that's floated around uh quite a bit, and that would be to uh make the inlets, which currently are at 5,92 ft, deeper to get more water out.
There are a lot of problems with that.
First of all, uh you'd probably dry up the marina, some of the marinas. There's at least one marina that I think the boats would get stuck in if you get much slower than that. And of course, uh there happened to be a couple of uh um existing compacts that would say don't do that. But it is a proposal that a lot of people have put forth.
Well, then wouldn't that create some I mean that's the other question I had I guess is when you start messing with the level of Bear Lake, don't you get into a lot of public outcry as far as either the water's too high or the water's too low or maybe >> I believe that would uh Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Aold, I do believe that would be the case.
>> I think Mr. Gibbs might be able to give some information. Thank you. And and Mike Mike and I visited for for quite a while about this. And did did you look at whether there's did we put a statutory limit on the on the depth of bar on the on the bottom of the pumps at 5902?
I I I I recall that we had done that statutoily like 20 30 years ago.
>> So >> to where we couldn't put water, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Is that in the water, right?
>> Yeah. So the water board owns the water, right? You know, just as the governor owns the one in Pere, etc. >> Below 5902.
>> Yes. 5902. You own the >> it's a minimum lake level. You can't go below that.
>> Uh so so there there's there's that consideration. And then another thing to keep in mind, Utah built a a deep marina about 15 or 20 years ago. They've made that at 59.85 85 and they're just in the process of a $10 million expansion of that marina to like triple its size and that'll also be dredged to 5985. So >> 5885 >> 58 >> 5885 >> I'd love to raise that.
>> Yeah 5885 pardon. So so they could get sailboats in and out of those marinas is what it amounts to with deep kills. So the 5902 has always been considered to be a hard bottom, but maybe you could go below it. It would be difficult.
>> Have we gone below it? I guess Mark, pardon me.
>> Have we gone below it before?
>> I don't think I don't think we have the ability. The pumps won't pump below.
>> We've been to 592 a couple of times >> few years ago.
>> And I'm wondering if we need to include that in this report. Um, >> uh, Mr. Rael, we did include that in the there's a paragraph write up that does include the difficulties with the marina and the fact that there is a limitation at 5902.
>> We did include that in the in the write up.
>> Yeah, I think Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth including for completeness because it is a proposal that has been made in the past.
>> Oh, okay. So, it's out there.
>> Yeah. So, we we uh I think it we include it. We write it up, say we can't do it because of Idaho law, the 5902 minimum lake level water, right? Can't draw below it. Physical limitations of the pump station and uh move on.
>> Okay. All right. I'm fine with that.
>> Chairman Mike, are there maybe you're going to get to are there last fill requirements on Bear Lake? If you use more in one year, is that the No, some stockholders use more. Are they all the same priority?
>> Um, we'll talk to you offline, but no, they're uh Pacific Corp Rocky Mountain Power has the water right and every water user has an allocation that they can withdraw. They can take up to their max and that's it. There is not a rental pool or any way to transfer water from one party to another currently. Uh that doesn't mean we that won't change in the future, but right now there's not no reason for Alaska provision.
>> Thank you, Mr. Rel. I think with the Bear Lake additional storage, um it is actually surprisingly complicated what would need to be done to to make that work. It is a big opportunity if we could Okay, I go ahead, Mike.
>> Any any other questions?
>> Yeah, before I move on. We're getting close.
>> Okay, you're doing fine.
>> Okay. Managed aquifer recharge. And this is a I'm kind of indebted to Mr. Anders for for diving into this section of the report. Um we have not we don't have a comprehensive study of the uh aquifer um in bear uh around Bay River in the Bay River base and uh but some of the things that we do know the depth of the groundwater uh the network of delivery systems that are in the area the geology what we do know about the retention of the aquifer make it look like it could be a very promising place to to put water. Of course, one nice thing about putting water in it is you can put water in it one of those one every uh 21% of the time years and it probably will still be available for use sometime later. In other words, it's kind of like having a reservoir there.
So, um that's something that I I think we probably would like to explore in the next report.
Um, so let's see like to just take a second and thank Ms. Ree over here for getting all of the the report formatted for us. She did wonders and she's very quick with it. And also Max Deckman uh put together the maps for us that are in there and he's a lot better at graphics than I am. So, I'd like to thank them. Um, anyway, so I stand for any questions or suggestions that you might have.
>> Okay. Board members, any additional questions or any recommendations to staff to or inclusions or exclusions to the report that'll be going out soon.
Dean, Sure. I guess I have a question on is there any prohibitions? I mean if you did some of these projects for example like taking it down the port probably would flood the port because the only time the water be right was but is there any prohibitions on basin interbasin transfers because you're taking one of them out of the one basin to another basin is there issues there >> I'm sure there would Mr. Go ahead Mr. Stevenson. I'm sure there will be if we if it actually were to come to fruition.
In fact, if the costs that I provided are only the costs of uh construction that would need to be done, there would be quite a bit of it. As it stands, the current Port River could not hand anything handle anything like this volume. So, you'd either have to put in a parallel canal or you'd have to widen and straighten the current river. And I think there would be a lot of opposition to that.
So, but I I'm not aware of any statutory uh rule that says we couldn't do it.
>> Okay. Mark, >> Mr. Mr. President, thank you. Uh just a couple of comments in terms of recharge.
Um the Grace Dam diverted water and then sent it through about an 8 foot pipeline down to a hill water dropped into the Grace power plant about a four or five mile pipeline that they had. It uh about three miles of that was wood stave uh pipe. That thing is 100 years old and deteriorated to the point that it was becoming dangerous. So late to April, I think April 26th was the date, they uh decommissioned or or furled the Grace plant and did away with the water going down that same pipeline. The the one thing we're going to find out as a result of that is the leakage in that pipeline which was 20 or 30 feet for three mile four mile stretch across the valley. what the incidental recharge of of that effect was and what effect that may have on domestic wells and whatnot in in that area this year as a few years further as we see no water going through that pipeline in terms of recharge it's just a an issue that locally we're uh aware of concerned about perhaps I don't know the recharge we've been getting from that from that flow line that's been leaking uh for 100 Could that pipeline route be used for a recharge project?
>> No. Well, >> well, you'd have to see >> it wouldn't take a lot >> pipes and it's system, you know, we lose 20% or 25 like everybody else does where we go across that lava. So obviously we do recharge our but nobody's ever we've never officially tried to recharge.
>> Do do we know if the section of the river from the grace dam down to where the river comes back in the power plant is that a losing reach or gaining reach?
Do we know? Probably a losing reach.
>> I don't know.
>> I think we know. Well, I that's something that we probably need to keep our finger on is is uh because there was a fair amount of water that that leaked and I don't know I don't did it all sink because it seems to me my memor is correct about halfway down that pentock they actually put in some kind of a gathering uh diversion works and a pump and they were pumping the water back into the pentock to get additional flow.
uh >> they would put it back into the pentock where they converted the pen stock to to metal pipe rather than >> Yeah.
>> originally it was metal pipe. They took it out and and then anyway it's got a long history but the the wood stave project leaked a ton and they used to put kids in there with cedar shingles in the in the in the summer and and and pound hole wood cedar shingles into those those leaks to try to try to stop it. Uh they had 10 15 high school kids every year that worked on them. So back in back in the day when I was in high school that's been a while.
>> So who owns that pipe?
>> Civic it's part of the great own.
>> Yeah.
>> No.
>> Anyway, sorry to divert but we're concerned about the recharge aspect of >> Okay. That's I had thought about that, but we do need to keep our finger on >> while we're talking about incidental recharge and and aquafer. Um, so the state of Idaho generally has a requirement that if you subdivide, develop that you use the the surface water if it's available. Is that true in the bear too, Mark? Is that like Soda Springs if they expand do they sell the sell the water rights off and drill wells or >> Well, I think it's something we're loosely monitoring in which we have better control of particularly the development of everything's occurred on the Utah side of the border, but it it is rapidly progressing into the Idaho side of the border and rest of this growing dramatically. But they have a city water system. So that's they also have bad water table. They have a high water table but bad water.
>> Yeah.
>> So for for domestic oils.
>> Well, I think Idaho is doing a better job of monitoring water >> than they are the bordering.
>> Okay. Um, anything else?
>> Okay.
>> I think, Mr. Chairman, we'd like your direction to go ahead and submit that report um on the due date.
>> Has it moved that we rapidly submit that report by the due date?
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Any discussion?
>> All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Good work, team. Thank you very much uh chairman and I will see you in about three months.
>> Okay. All right. Uh the next item is the water resource support palisate storage release and the Swan Falls agreement.
>> Yes. Uh Matt Anders will will walk through um where we're at with with uh the the Swanf Falls flows, the shortfall we experienced uh this year, and the uh proposal to utilize some colisade storage in order to remedy that shortfall.
>> Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Matt Anders. I'm going to give you a brief update on Swan Falls and the minimum stream flow. So, the way I have my uh presentation structured, there's some background slides. I'm going to go quickly through those. Most of you were at the committee meeting uh where I presented that, but then I'll uh go in depth as to what happens in 2026 and what the options are.
So, this is a map on the right here of Southwest Idaho. Swan Falls is the star there on the left side. Uh this is a dam owned by Idaho Power. They use it for generating um hydropower. It's on the Snake River. It's south of Boise uh for a for a small dam kind of out in the middle of nowhere. Uh it's been the focus of a lot of litigation and a lot of um attention. So the mo the main point here in terms of litigation, it went all the way to the Supreme Court is that the the water right there at Swan Falls is not subordinated to other beneficial uses. And that has quite a few ramifications.
But coming out of this litigation, the state and Idaho Power signed an agreement in 1984. This agreement established two minimum stream flows at uh we refer to it as the Murphy gauge, but it's the same as roughly Swan Falls.
5600 CFS during the non-errigation season and 3,900 cfs during the irrigation season. Another uh item in the agreement was that it we had to use the actual flow conditions at uh the Murphy gauge or swamp falls and the technical working group worked out a calculation for that and I have a slide later to address that.
On the right here is the we're back uh with a map of kind of southwest and south central Idaho. Um the river reach that we're interested in here in here is Milner Dam to Swan Falls Dam. There's several inputs into this reach. There's water pass Milner Dam. There's the eastern snake plane aquifer in uh it gives inputs to the river. There's a tributary streams and there's southside returns uh irrigation returns. There's also withdrawals in uh of irrigation in water district 2.
So the the calculation that the technical working group came up with to compare to the minimum stream flow is called the Swan Falls adjusted average daily flow or AADF. The calculation is here on the left. I'm not going to go through the calculation, but the take-home message is the calculation is designed to take out op uh river operations between Swan Falls and Milner Dam. There's four dams owned by Idaho Power in that stretch. So we don't want the operations of those reservoirs affecting the flow at Swamp Falls. So we take that out in this calculation. And then we average uh the the calculations on a 3-day average.
What comes out of that is a figure like this on the right. This happens to be 2024 as an example. These are sent out by email. If you're not getting them, let us know. Uh we'll make sure you're you're on the email. But there's two things I want to point out on this graph. There's two lowflow periods that we worry about. The last two weeks of March and then the month of July. Those are when times when uh the the flow at Swan Falls gets low and gets near the minimum stream flows.
So now let's take a look at what happened in 2026. So in the last two weeks of March, uh there was no flow past Milner Dam. The eastern snake plane aquifer was discharging below average in the uh Milner Dam to King Hill reach.
The tributary streams were below average as well. Um the one good thing was is that uh Twin Falls Canal Company turned on early. So they started early and they were uh the return flows were about average. Terms of withdrawals um when Twin Falls Canal Company turned on so did Water District 2. So they started early as well and they were about average diversions.
All of this uh resulted in the adjusted average daily flow at Swan Falls going below 5600 5600 cfs the last couple of weeks of March uh six days for a volume of 2,91 acre feet. Now that that volume I have it marked as a preliminary the technical working group is working on it. We're in the ballpark, but we should have that number, the final number, pretty soon. The other thing I want to point out on this graph is we're through one of the lowflow periods, but we're not to July yet. Uh, if you look at where that black line is compared, there's a kind of a red line there, which is the minimum of record. We're kind of bouncing along the minimums.
That's not a good sign. So, we're hoping for a cool, wet summer to get us through July.
So what does that mean? So this isn't the first time we've gone below the min the minimum stream flow at Swan Falls.
The last time was in 2015. Went below for a couple of days and it was 190 acre feet was the shortfall. In response to that, the board passed a resolution establishing a debit system. So instead of trying to mitigate it in real time, the idea was we keep track of how much they were short and then send storage down later when Idaho Power requests it to offset that shortfall.
That resolution is still in place and it's in your board materials if you're interested.
So the choice now that the board has is to decide what to do with the shortfall in March 2026. So, if the board chooses to offset the shortfall with its 5,000 acre feet of storage and palisades, which is the 1939 space, here are the numbers for what that would look like.
So, I've estimated the storage allocation for the board on that space as of May 10th. I checked on Tuesday, which was the 19th. It's still the same.
You're going to get about 3,900 acre feet uh for your storage allocation.
The shortfall is just right around 2100 acre feet. That would mean that you would have out of your storage allocation 1,800 acre feet uh after that offset. The water district one rental pool pool procedures has a paragraph on this mitigating uh shortfalls at Swan Falls. It states that the board has to run the storage through the rental pool and has to pay the administrative fees. Currently, the administrative fees are $2.31 an acre feet foot. So on 2100 acre feet, you're talking $4,800.
Uh talked to Idaho Power briefly. Uh they would likely request delivery in July. So, we would wait until then whenever they say to deliver it, probably with their other storage that they're moving out in July from the upper snake. I have a couple of asterisks on here. The first one being on the 2091.
If the board uses decides to offset that and deliver the storage to Idaho Power, that space next year in 2027 will become last to fill. That's going to be that means it moves to the end less likely to fill and harder to fill. We saw from the bureau yesterday in the water supply meeting they're projecting probably less than 500,000 acre feet of carryover this year the way we're going. So it's a low likelihood that it would fill next year.
So that space may not fill next year.
>> The the other asterk I have there is the double asterk on the 1800. that's how much you'd have left after you do this offset. Um, also need to think that could be carryover for next year or that could be used for offsetting if we go below in July.
With that, Mr. Chairman, uh, I could stand for questions.
I guess I should say in your board materials there's a resolution um if you want to go that route to um do >> okay we talked about this uh at the March meeting and we reviewed the resolution that was passed in 2015 as I recall and um it's it's fairly clear that on an interim basis we have agreed to miticate uh for these uh very short intermittent uh breaches of the Murphy minimums.
And so I I guess we can talk about it, but I think we by resolution we've uh obligated ourselves to uh backfill this uh shortfall that was created in late March.
Uh anybody have any thoughts on that?
>> Brian, >> chairman, just a comment. Um and not time with the resolution. But um so I talked to Brian Murdoch earlier in the hall and and um he was had seen how the river was flowing about 7500 maybe through Swan Falls here the last couple weeks and and so um so I explained to them how that's the you know that's that flow a water I'm adding on to the top of the Thousand Springs and Southside returns. But the other thing I've noticed and and this has been for years, it's um how much how nice I drove down yesterday and that blow out water was still going through because it takes even though shut off on the 18th, it takes a few days and the river looks so good from you know the river I mean we we need to keep as much water for agriculture as we can and we don't want to put farmers out of business but but the only water the river gets through the middle snake in well since 2023 has been those few weeks of flowog water each year. So it is um and and the um you know we put a lot of pollutants in that river from the you know twin pulse tract which I used to manage and and a lot better than it used to be but but um when you do run some water through you get rid of a lot of that phosphorus but it's never going to be never going to get it low enough that we're not going to grow a lot of aquatic vegetation in there when when the flow is real low and that so that additional 3500 for even a couple of weeks um moves a lot of the of the particularly the macro vegetation that grows in there. And so so it is um you know the the river needs some water too every year. And if we if we go too far on on flow, we won't there will be you know maybe multiple years when we'll have virtually zero flow through there other than when it gets to thousand springs.
So, so just to comment, I want to I want to keep farmers in business, but but uh you know, for river health, you've got to have and and the sturgeon, wildlife, all that, you've got to have got to have some time of the year when that river flows some.
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, >> yes, >> just for a clarification, Matt, when you have a shortfall, the extra water will come out of Palisades Reservoir.
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vance Stone, they deliver it out of American Falls.
>> Okay.
>> But it's going to come out of your space or the board space out of Palisades on paper, but physically the water will come out of American Falls.
>> So, is the American Falls going to be short then?
>> No, they'll move water down to replace it. So, it's just part of their operation.
>> There's there's two sets of books.
There's the paper accounting that keeps track of everybody's water and how much they have allocated to them. Then there's the other set of books that's physically what's going on in the system. And the way reclamation operates, they try to keep the water as high in the system as possible because if you don't need it all, it's better to keep it up high than in the lower reservoir. So they they tend to draft the lower reservoirs more heavily early in the season and then if you have rains or whatever, the storage stays up high because you can always let the water come down. It's a lot more difficult to push it back up to the higher elevation reservoirs. Swamp falls is the key here with all this water movement.
>> Yeah. All All we're doing is uh back filling a shortfall that occurred back in late March with the same quantity of water that Idaho Power has the ability to time when they would like it. And it sounds like they're telling us they would probably uh have want to have that water released and delivered during July.
>> Okay.
>> Mr. Chairman.
>> Yeah.
So, um, what we're doing with this is essentially protecting trustwwater rights. And I know this is in the works, but the trust water rights are going to ultimately going to have to step up to take care of this kind of problem. But in the interim, before we have a mechanism in place for that to happen, having the board backfill these is better than tailing all these water rights. And so we would move that we adopt the resolution in to release this uh 2091 or whatever the right to item.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Okay. And then I think we have comment or question here.
>> I have a question but it's not going to be affected the motion.
>> You go ahead.
Is there any estimates for July when we might fall?
Not asking for you to throw out a number, but do you think it would exceed what we have left in our let's see what we have in the story?
>> Mr. Chairman, uh, Miss Cole Hansen, possibly. So the difference between March and July is March um we go below the last couple of weeks but then on April 1 it drops from 5600 to 39. And that usually what saves us from going under longer. We're not going to have that saving grace in July. It's 3900 the whole time. If we go under, it's likely that we'll go under for a while type of thing.
How much? It's unclear.
Okay. I I think the department's working on an analysis of of our forecast and I think they'll have that for us in the coming weeks to help us anticipate >> that was Mr. Chairman. The swampfall's forecast was released last week at the technical working group. I might ask if Ethan would be willing to talk about that for a minute or two.
>> Okay. All right.
>> Since the question was asked.
>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um yeah, the technical working group had a meeting last week. Uh the department runs the forecast tool for that meeting and I think there was a 10% chance of a for of a shortfall up to 600 acre feet. Um and then if you take into account a different forecast which the tool isn't calibrated to can go anywhere from 600 to I think 1500 feet was the 10th percentile. So that's really dry conditions which is what we're seeing.
So >> gives you kind of a range of an idea.
Yeah, Ethan or >> acre feet. Yeah. 600 to,500 acre feet.
>> Okay. All right. Any question? I think so.
>> There's a small amount potential uh credit that would have to be provided if in fact that happens. Right.
>> And just one more clarification, Ethan or Matt. Um so that that um when Idaho Power does their release in July with their water that doesn't count towards that minimum.
>> I save the steps Ethan. No, it does not.
>> So it really would have really have to be about 5200 or something like that to >> to not violate the minimum 39.
>> Well, they they they calculate what the net 39 is.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And as long as there's 39 there with Idaho Powers water riding on top of that 39, we're okay. And and if I understand correctly, the forecast is that over the course of the this season somewhere we may have a shortfall of 6 to500 acre feet uh below that 39 threshold.
Okay.
Um any more questions? Uh we have uh a motion to adopt a resolution.
Uh no more discussion. Uh we'll proceed to vote. Uh this involves money and water. Uh double whammy. We'll have a roll call vote.
>> Mr. Barker.
>> Hi.
>> Miss Cole Hansen.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Gibbs.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. McMahon.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Olmstead.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Stevenson.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Van Stone.
>> Hi.
>> Chairman Rayold. I motion carries. We will uh work with Idaho Power to uh uh make that happen.
Okay. Uh we get to turn the page over.
We're down to item 18 now. Uh ESBA recharge program projects.
>> Chairman Matt Anders will discuss a uh proposed recharge infrastructure project um on the Eastern State Plane Aqua.
>> Good.
>> Welcome Matt.
>> Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Matt Anders. I'll talk about our recharge project.
I got one slide for this.
>> So, so New Sweden Irrigation District has proposed a project uh that we refer to the Hell's Halfacre ITD pit. This is a Idaho transportation department. It's an active um gravel pit. I just noticed as I'm standing here that dot is in the wrong spot. It's uh supposed to be south and a little bit west of Idaho Falls.
So, um but it's an active pit. The idea would be is that uh New Sweden would recharge into it in the spring when there's water available and then the rest of the year ITD would continue their gravel operations. So, it's kind of a a dual use. The nice part that we like about this project, no excavation.
It's already it's already excavated. the neighbors are used to it having it be a gravel pit. Uh so there really isn't any change in the kind of in the vicinity.
Um this is a 13 acre basin. It's at the end of the Great Western Canal. Um I think it's after the last diversion.
Cost is $450,000.
Um it's cheaper than what we've seen in other projects because all it would require is a a diversion structure and a couple monitoring wells. Uh the capacity would be 30 cfs. Um and the cost per acre foot is $11 an acre foot. Um and then the return to the river is in the near the Shelly to near Blackfoot and the Blackfoot to Neie. So um with that, Mr. Chairman, if there's any questions, uh we stand for those.
>> Okay. Board members, any questions on this project?
Dean, >> uh, is there potential to make this a bigger I know this is kind of a good area. Is is there potential to make this more than 30 CFS or is that what the capacity is going to be at on the end of the Great Western?
>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, my understanding is that's the capacity at the end of the Great Western. I don't know if there's a possibility to upgrade that canal. We could look at that.
>> Well, it's the MC. Well, I I I think it's also seeing uh what the infiltration rate is in the gravel pit.
I'm I'm sure if the water was sinking faster than we can get it there, then the next step would be to figure out how to get a little more there.
>> Just one more question for Matt. So, >> so I think a year ago or so we approved money for what I'd call the Burgess Canal Pit. Okay.
>> An old ITD pit. Did Did we get any test on percolation in that?
>> We haven't been able to test that one yet, Mr. Mr. Mstead.
>> Okay. Any other questions?
>> Yeah. Water first.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Good.
>> I think we need every pit we can buy and then hope the water comes.
>> Okay. Anything else? We have a resolution before us.
Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move we accept this resolution.
>> Okay, I have a motion to adopt the resolution. Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
>> Uh, there being none, we'll proceed to vote. Mileen, if we could have a vote, please.
>> Mr. Barker, >> hi.
>> Miss Cole Hansen, >> I.
>> Mr. Gibbs, >> I.
>> Mr. McMahon, >> hi.
>> Mr. Olmstead, >> hi.
>> Mr. Stevenson, >> I.
>> Mr. Van, >> I >> chairman Rayold, >> I. Motion carries.
Okay, Mr. Patton, the next item is flow augmentation exchange agreement.
>> Uh, correct, Mr. Chairman. Mileen, could you pull up that resolution, put it on the screen, please? Uh, this is the item that was discussed quite in quite a bit of detail earlier this morning. Um, when Mr. Murdoch was at this at the podium.
We talked about the potential for a flow augmentation exchange between um to offset uh the Bureau of Reclamation's release of some of their Palisades power headwater in exchange for additional rentals beyond the Bureau of Reclamation rentals uh out of the Payet uh which would then be delivered downstream for flow augmentation.
Um, this resolution would uh authorize the board to execute an agreement with reclamation to put that into effect.
We've been working on an agreement back and forth. Uh, Mr. Raybold, Garrick Baxter, and myself been trading drafts of the agreement back and forth with Reclamation. In fact, we're scheduled to meet with them at 4:00 this afternoon to hopefully u finalize that that uh agreement. Um the agreement contemplates that the water any uh Palisades power head water that is offset by the additional payet rentals that goes to the groundwater districts uh that the groundwater districts bear that cost.
This resolution does authorize um up to $200,000 for for use by the board in the event that the board decides there is a need to retain any of this potential offset water for other purposes such as Swanfalls minimum flows or other needs uh that may come up this year. Um with that, uh the resolution's on the screen.
Uh now therefore be a resolve the board hereby grants authority to the chairman or his designate to enter into a flow augmentation exchange agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Uh therefore be it further resolved the groundwater districts will pay their respective costs toward this flow augmentation exchange. And now therefore be a further resolved the board obligates up to $200,000 from the secondary opera fund to be used in the event some of the palisates power head water is needed by the water board for its purposes.
>> Okay Mr. Chairman Brian >> so the idea is that the board would acquire 2500 acre feet from recommen um Mr. Chairman Mr. Parker, the idea is that the groundwater districts uh the ESPA groundwater districts would go into the pay acquire that water at a higher price than the standard flow augmentation rate to induce additional water to be rented, >> right? And then so how do we acquire the water?
>> So here here's what the chairman's thinking today and it's kind of fluid. I I'm thinking that maybe we call dibs on about 2500 acre feet of the if if in fact the potential's 25,000 and we get close to that 25,000 uh offering for rental that uh we call dibs on about 2500 acre feet and we probably pay the rental on that 2500 acre feet and then we can see through the course of the season if there uh are specific needs that the water board's called on to address such as meeting a shortfall at the Murphy gauge and and there's some other things out there that we need to be uh focused on as well. Uh but not to the detriment of the groundwater districts uh achieving their commitment to deliver 75,000 acre feet and mitigation water. Uh and so we're working with the groundwater districts on that. But I think I think it'll be prudent right now uh for us to hold a small amount of this water that's going to be exchanged and then and then we'll we'll see that it gets used and it gets used in the best way possible uh between now and and uh November 1st.
>> Do we have a line for in the budget to do this? Where do we get the money to rent the water bill?
M >> M Mr. Chairman, Mr. Parker, when you just you set the uh secondary aquifer fund budget a few minutes ago, there was a remainder at the bottom of >> a couple hundred,000, >> right?
>> Follow up, Mr. Chairman. And what's what will the price be on this pay at water then?
>> Uh I don't know we have a final number on that. Uh >> whatever it takes.
>> Well, I I it it's going to be probably 3x the flow on rate give or take a few bucks.
>> It's amazing since the pay doesn't have a demand.
>> Well, um until today, >> I I I think all all good business people uh sense need when they're negotiating price. And uh so that's where we're at.
>> So it will be willing buyer, willing seller on the pay.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Yeah.
Major issue is the Bureau of Reclamation had to show they rented the first 75 out of the pay >> and then any additional rentals that are induced by the groundwater districts pay 3x the flow on rate go to the exchange.
And uh the the agreement assures reclamation that they will get the 75.
If if their rentals come up short of 75, then the exchange uh for uh Palisad's power head water cannot occur. So we got to get them there. And we believe that uh the pay water users have a short reclamation, they're going to get to 75.
So we're ready to do the rest of the deal.
which is interesting because we've been renting 90 in the past.
Well, pay water users assured reclamation in us that 75 was the cap this year.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
>> I I I'll just refer back to your previous statement.
>> Yeah.
You saying the Boisey project might want some more out >> from the April range which we've got no number from the west side east side of state. So we have Thank you for allowing us to >> do this valley has been blessed with timely rain. Um apparently it's not timely for us to have our range yet in the Magic Valley in Eastern Idaho.
>> So probably come in August, Jeff. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> And Lou Hicks cuts his hay.
>> Yeah.
>> I'm not even sure hay down's going to do it. I think maybe grain combines in the field.
>> Okay. Anything else? We have a resolution before us.
>> Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt this resolution.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Okay. Uh any further discussion? Okay.
Let's proceed to vote. Let's have a roll call vote on this if we could. Mile.
>> Mr. Barker.
>> Hi.
>> Miss Cole Hansen.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Gibbs.
>> Hi, >> Mr. McMahon.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Olmstead.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Stevenson.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Van Stone.
>> Hi, >> Chairman Rayold.
>> I motion carries. Thank you very much.
Okay, a regional manager update.
>> Yes. Um, Scott King is our relatively new regional manager uh here for the Southwest Idaho office uh in Boise and uh he'll he'll give an update on what's going on with with that region. Okay, welcome Scott.
>> Chairman Rabble, members of the board, thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be up here to talk to you today.
See if I push this right.
Um, again, my name is Scott King. Uh, now with the Department of Water Resources as your Western Regional Manager. Little history about me. I was raised in American Falls, moved over there at a young age and then after graduating from high school, went to college at Idaho State University and right after that joined the department of water resources first as a summer temporary in the eastern region doing field exams largely in the big lost basin 34 during the beginning of the adjudication test work up there. So, as a a new person out of school, I got an earful from a number of folks um that were interested in the adjudication proceedings and after spending a summer there, moved to Boisey and into the energy division when we had the energy division with the Department of Water Resources and then into water distribution. Um assisted Tim Luke and Gary Spackman in starting the groundwater measurement program on the eastern snake plane. then worked in the adjudication bureau and finished in dam safety in the western region for a year and during that time while I was with water resources worked on my master's degree through the University of Idaho here in town and then in 2004 I joined the private sector um a very short stint with the Danish hydraulic group and then went to SPF water engineering um a year after they formed and stuck with SPF water engineering until they were purchased by HDR our engineering and was there for several years until deciding to come back to the department of water resources here in uh late October of last year.
Um this is our structure uh 13 positions in our office. From the left side have an administrative assistant and then um an engineer tech one for our dam safety engineer.
We have our water resource agent that's groundwater protection largely obser uh working the well construction program um and a con another technical records specialist that works closely in that well drilling program with Clint. And then I have two water rights supervisors uh Scott Storms and Marcelina Riddle.
Marcelino just recently moved into that position from a senior agent and both of those supervisors have two agent positions and then a technical record specialist. One of those agent positions is open. That's where Marcelina moved in and we've interviewing this week to fill that position.
And as I look through the other regional updates, we provide update on our workload. And on this one, this is our transfer applications.
And we can see that it might largely steady applications. It might be decreased in the last few years just slightly.
Receiving about 54 applications a year and about 46 being resolved yearly.
And on applications for permit, we receive about 181 per year and about 155 are get resolved. And one of my goals coming over from the private sector and often submitting these applications is to help move some of those that have been aged a little bit or otherwise unresolved to move through the resolution process.
Oh, that color didn't show up very good for you. But we average about 317 ownership and change notices per year in the western region.
Talk about some of the issues that I see that we see going on in the western region. First of all, in southern Canyon County, there was a petition to create a critical groundwater area that was submitted in 2024.
Um, recently the director issued a temporary moratorum order in March and denied that petition for a critical groundwater area. What we see in this area is largely a lot of the groundwater levels tend to be stable, sometimes even increasing when you look towards the southern end of the area. But there are very significant seasonal fluctuations that are impe impacting domestic wells in particular. And this area is um undergoing quite a bit of pressure from developers for residential areas and other subdivisions.
So there were a number of concerns that were identified certain folks that have identified decreasing water levels. Some of those looked like they were isolated incidents, but this moratorum temporary for 5 years gives the department an opportunity to study those water levels and conditions and situations a little bit better and also work on developing the western snake plane aquifer model.
Um it was not quite as responsive in this area as it has been in other areas.
So model development is is part of the goals here.
Um yeah, move on to the next one.
in Ada County.
Um, if we look at those very bright red triangles on the left map, we can see on the right map, and this is I can't really point to it on here, but it's it's where the arrows are pointing, the red arrows with some text, we can see that those have turned into larger blue triangles. So that's the souththeast area near Micron where there was substantial water level declines and then improvements as the area was recharged largely with water out of the Boisee River.
So that's a success story there providing water and really refilling that aquafer up area there. Um we do have some areas of decline. So if we look south and east of that micron area, southern Ada County, we're seeing about half a half a foot per year to 3/4 of a foot per year of aquafer level declines and >> south and east or south and west.
>> Excuse me. South and west. Thank you, Mr. Olmstead. Um, and those are the areas.
One of my goals is to look a little closer at those and see what kind of management issues we can go through. We have a number of transfers in that area and also as we look at the the next point there are the data center concerns. We have data centers that are interested in developing that area. One was a meta which already has water right transfer approved and then there is another one with a water right transfer that is processed um through advertising without protests but that applicant has asked for it to be held right now as they're waiting for other approvals from the county or the city. And I think that would be CUNA. Some concerns going on there. Um, and might remember this from the Idaho Water Users Association meeting, their conference earlier this year where the works director from Kuno was describing that the first data center that were proposed, the met one received very little interest from the public in Kuna, but the second one that was proposed re received quite a bit of interest and and we hear that in our region as well.
And then lastly on this list are drain flows. We've seen that drain flows decline and some opportunities where maybe the drains are flows are fluctuating significantly and if they could be leveled out attenuated then that might help Daniel Water District 63 water master deliver water out of the Boisee River a little bit better. I think uh you're going on a tour tomorrow morning and with your approval I'd like to join you on that tour.
groundwater protection or well construction unit. Um western region receives about 35% of the drilling applications per year in 25 not 2025 it was uh and a lot of these are in the Cascade Donnelly Mcccoall area. there's a lot of development pressure up there right now. And so that takes a little bit of an effort for our well construction um agent to go up there and travel and spend some time up there. And it's also creating more concerns as I'm hearing folks from Valley County have been expressing concerns about groundwater conditions and development in that area and what may happen in the future.
>> Yes.
>> Is are the Sawtooth Sawtooth Valley in the western region?
>> No, not at all. But that was a photo that was on my phone and one that was evil for me to put on here.
>> Take that one all the time.
>> Is that taken from your house?
>> I wish.
>> In damn safety, Manuel reported that during 2025, the western region eliminated its backlog of inspections.
Um, and so that was quite a large backlog. 77 dams were inspected. In 2026, we have 26 inspections that are due. Seven of those are large projects.
That's a manageable workload. So, our dam safety engineer will be helping with other water right processes as we're working through these inspections this year.
And also, he gave an update on stimite gold project construction. Um, mine tailings facility is expected this summer.
project will require bi-weekly to monthly site visits for several months and perpetuate excavation of the embankment footprint is anticipated in July and August.
And then on the direct damache analysis, um we now have access to DSS wise uh damach model at no cost and we're anticipated that we will be using that model and incorporating liar elevation data into the model in 2026. It'll significantly improve our elevation resolution and accurate results in damache modeling.
And with that, I'll stand for any questions.
>> Okay, board members. Any questions for Scott?
>> Mr. Chairman Scott, what were the working numbers for demands on the uh data center water requirement?
>> Mr. Chairman, um Mr. McMahon, the working numbers, what the total demand that they'll be using >> that what they were Yeah. Yeah. What their their suggested number was or what just kind of what level were you looking at as far as water consumption?
>> I wish I had that number right in front of me. I didn't bring it and I'll try to report that back to you tomorrow. But I'm remembering numbers that fluctuated around 2 to three million gallons per day. And as was reported by the works director in Cuna, it's kind of evolved over time where it was a larger number and then it went down I think I remember one and a half millions of gallons a day and then back up to two millions of gallons a day depending on what the processes they were using. Um what has happened in both of these water right situations are the centers have purchased a farm and transferred that water changed the nature of use from irrigation to the industrial for the data center. So I think we'd look at that as the equivalent amount of water that was transferred over.
>> Pat, Mr. Chairman, Pat, I've seen some numbers that go all over the board. And it's got to depend on how big it is and how and the type of equipment they use, but >> the average number I saw was half a CFS.
>> Half of a CFS.
>> Yeah.
Some of them are non-conumptive where they just use it transfer heat with it >> like a pump and dump Yeah. thing or is it is that consumptive use or is it going back to the river or something >> through the ground?
>> Well, yeah. Yeah, I think it's ground through the system back into the ground like heat pumps.
>> Yeah. So, the only loss would be is if there's any evaporation going through the cooling.
>> So, that's consumption. Yeah. Okay.
>> Right. A lot of angst and not a lot of facts.
>> Mr. Chairman, Scott, the data center that's in Kuna.
>> Yeah.
>> Is that a goal? That's a goal for sure.
>> North of Kuna, but Yes, sir.
>> Yeah. How many acres did that cover?
>> I don't have those numbers in front of me, sir.
>> I think uh they acquired 600 acres. I don't know what the actual footprint of the facility is. Is that sound right, >> Mr. Chairman? That sounds in the ballpark.
>> So, they're using groundwater for their source.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Okay.
>> I guess more. So, the declines you're seeing out um in that Kuna area, do you suspect that I mean, is there sprinkler conversion going on out there? I mean that was largely surface irrigated before and and I see more center pivots that kind of stuff out there will definitely have a probably an impact.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olm said I think that some of it is converted when it was water irrigated out of the canal system.
I think even some of those old groundwater rights were surface irrigated and were probably converted over to sprinkler quite a while ago.
Okay. Anything else? Think we'll be talking more about what's going on out there tomorrow.
Okay. Uh thank you Scott. Appreciate you taking the time to come and visit with us and look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
Okay. Director Weaver, you got a exciting and stimulating report for us today.
>> Mr. Chairman, only you can be the judge of that.
>> Okay.
Um, but I do have a number of items here to work through. And I'll just start by saying what a great series of presentations that we had from staff. It just you sit here and you marvel at the scope of our work uh and the expertise that staff have uh diversity of these programs.
One comment I thought as our engineer manager 2 Scott King was presenting to you is that people are have an unlimited interest in data centers from the national scene to the state scene to the local scene. Uh everyone wants to know as much as they can about water centers or data centers and and then the water and power use that goes along with those. A couple of themes that have emerged as I've sat through many of these discussions if we're interested in this topic is one there's not a lot of transparency from the data centers on their water and power use. And so you're seeing a lot of legislative action across the country that's forcing that transparency to understand the impact that they're going to have. Another theme that's emerged is their water use can be very minimal or it can be very large. Um, you can do evaporative cooling, you can do water cooling, or you can cool uh power. But the less water you use, the more power you have to consume uh to cool those facilities. And as I've considered this issue in Idaho, I think it's largely a question of what the public interest is. Do we want to displace a consumptive use with data center consumptive use? Um, it's not so much, I think, in my mind, additional consumptive use that's going to occur, but how is that consumptive use, what what is Idaho going to value or think is the best use? Um, especially when we're talking about groundwater.
So, I've got two broad headings to present to you today. The first one is operations and then the second one is administration. Uh so I'll start with a presentation or with topics uh under that operations heading and give you an update on the water resources and surface water or soil water conservation merger. Uh you heard from uh Loretta Strickland this morning on the walkpaw program. I thought that was an outstanding presentation. Uh 274 projects have been requested for funding uh requesting $26.7 million of projects in four years. We've accomplished 134 projects spending $12 million of money that has come to the commission for that program and that's been used to leverage about 32 million in on the ground conservation. So, it's a really successful program. There's a huge demand for it across Idaho and it's one of those programs where I think there's a lot of synergy between this body uh and the commission. And of course, some of the challenges with that have been the inconsistent funding, which she highlighted. Uh, two one-time uh allocations of five million and then two one time of 1 million. But another significant challenge is that once that funding comes, we need to select, review, fund, and complete projects in a single fiscal year because they don't have any continuously appropriated funds within their budget. So, you know, that's a a stress that they've had on that program.
I'm working now with a small work group including members of the commission to develop anou that will describe the working relationship between the department uh and the commission. Uh I plan to submit a joint strategic plan uh for the two agencies as we become one agency. Hopefully soon I'll be able to stop saying two agencies. Uh and a joint performance report uh and then coordinating on what the budgeting process is going to look like for the two agencies in the upcoming uh fiscal year 28 budget development process. And then we're also working through the executive agency legislative process to identify further tweaks that need to occur uh in title 22. That's the egg title in title 42 to solidify the merger.
I want to give you an update on the water supply bank. I think we have uh some good news there and some bad news.
And I think the bad news is that we noticed here in the last uh couple of months that there's a significant backlog uh during the springtime in both leases and rentals. Uh that's been there now for two years. And it's a departure from where we were prior to that where we would get those um after concerted uh effort during the non-errigation season, we'd get the the rental backlog down to a more manageable level. Um but it's it's spiked up pretty significantly this spring. Uh currently we have 107 pending leases and 93 rental applications that are pending. Uh and that's probably two times what we would think is a manageable backlog.
Um now we have talked in the past about reorganizing the group within the agency to address water supply bank work. In the past we've had several people in the planning and project bureaus working on this. Several people dedicated to this full-time in the water rights water allocation bureau. uh and then seasonal people that would come in and help out uh when there was a need. We're now reorganized under a single group in our water allocation bureau in our water rights section. Uh that's five dedicated full-time positions. Uh David Grey Bill has been selected to be the water resource supervisor who will oversee that group and he will have a principal water resource agent, a senior water resource agent, and two technical record specialists to help manage that program.
and that will be uh you know their dedicated focus year round and we're hopeful that with those additional resources so this is more resources than we've had in the past to carry out the program work um and then having some continuity in people uh responsible for that and doing the work that we'll be able to get uh the backlog down to hopefully almost no backlog of rentals year-over-year that certainly would be my goal I think we are seeing those significant backlog levels because of that uh disconnection between the groups working on it and just the fact that there's been a lot of turnover in those full-time positions dedicated to doing water supply bank work.
David Grey Bill is coming to us from our salmon field office uh to take over that program. He needed to see out the school year there with his family and his kids.
So, he will be coming to Boise uh hopefully here soon full-time to oversee that group. uh and in recognition of the backlog and the fact that we didn't want to give this assignment to this new group uh and start them in a significantly deep hole uh in April and May, we're uh continuing to identify people that will support water supply activities from outside of that group uh to hopefully knock that backlog down significantly uh so that when the new group is ready, fully formed here and doing the work, it's not such a large mountain that they have to overcome right out of the gate. So, temporary resources that are assigned to water supply bank activity, include an additional technical record specialist, a senior water resource agent to resolve some of the most complicated rentals that are on the ESPA, uh an engineer to do the modeling to model the impacts of those uh leases and rentals on the Eastern Snake plane, and then a supervisor to complete the QAQC and final review of those. And so hopefully by the next time this board meets, we'll be able to point to a a reduction in that backlog due to the efforts.
>> Any questions on the water supply bank?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
>> Director Weaver, is there any way on those water supplies to automate some more of that? I mean, I know I've done some of those in the past and is I know it comes seasoning. against big lungs that come through. Is there any way to streamline or automate that or have folks have some engineering done before they submit those?
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, I think that's a good question. When you say automation, what that means to me is having IT technology available to support in those processes and that's long been a need identified. uh we started to work on some of those uh workflow application development processes several years ago and then went through the modernization effort with it lost those dedicated resources and lost the momentum behind that. So I think that there's probably significant ability for uh application development and automation processes that could uh streamline that process or expedite that process.
Yeah, I think the director shared more than he wants to hear from me about the water supply bank. So I I I know he's working on it.
>> Okay.
>> Critical feedback is always welcome.
>> Yeah, I try to be constructive >> and you were no doubt. It's it's one of those areas, especially in a year like this where it becomes very apparent very quickly that this is a need that the public has. uh it's a tool that has to work uh well and quickly for them so that they can manage their water and get it where they need it uh when there's not enough for all of their typical uses.
Switching gears, talk about the web page update. Uh based on a flurry of emails that I've seen this morning, our new web page is going live after concerted effort uh from outside consultants, OITS, and certainly uh department staff over the last six to eight months. Um in May of 2025, OITS notified all of the state agencies that all public websites had to meet federal ADA digital accessibility standards by May of this year. Now, just as a side note, that deadline got pushed out another year several weeks ago, but irrespective of that move in the deadline, we're going live today with the website that has been uh transformed to meet ADA accessibility uh requirements. Now, there will be some additional work that has to occur uh as we move forward. Um, and then in addition to meeting that federal requirement, uh, we have put a lot of effort into revising the web page and making it simpler, less redundant, um, easier to navigate and certainly more efficient.
What we heard through this process is because of the diversity of programs that we have at the department uh because of the expectation that the public has to access many different disparit types of data sets uh at the web page and then also because of our significant legal uh resource that we have on the line that we're probably the the most complicated website in Idaho state government or one of them uh and we maintain about 200 gigab of records online for public access. Uh so through this process we've paired back uh the total web pages that we had associated with our site by 80% getting rid of redundant documents where those existed redundant links tried to simplify it while maintaining the same content just in a more efficient way.
I want to especially recognize Burke Barton, a now retired uh IT business analyst and then my assistant Megan Jenkins who were the project leads in undertaking this process. Uh and it was a big one and they of course were supported by many folks at the department in the various sections to help get us ready for the transition.
Mr. Yeah, Matt did lost a bunch of records a while back.
Are those all now up to date and back? We're still in the process of getting still in the process of getting those um back.
>> And Mr. Chairman, board member Barker, you're referring to when we lost our laser fish uh digital document storage system. Uh we are largely fully recovered from that and have been for about a year. Um, and when you search that laserfish um, system, uh, you're going through sometimes portals online at our web page, but you're hitting the document storage system behind it. And that has not been part of, uh, the overhaul of this process. So, the way that you interface with that data has been modified, but that system itself has been up and running, uh, securely uh, and uh, robustly for about a year now.
The remaining piece of this, what we're calling phase two, is the development of a searchable and filterable public document library that will be the backend of our web page so that you can come in and kind of irrespective of the program or the issue be able to search against that and and hopefully in a more efficient way than has been you've been able to do in the past find the documents that you're interested in.
We continue to be under travel restrictions here at the department.
Those have been in place uh probably somewhere on the order of six weeks now.
I implemented those restrictions because we were at the the the bottom of the barrel when it came to general fund money available uh to support travel. Um and so we have only been approving um necessary emergency travel for the last four or five weeks. I have made a number of approvals to keep uh items in place such as the um some minimal base level of well inspections during construction.
We don't want the well drillers to think that there's no regulatory presence on the landscape because there are some people that we we think are very important that we monitor them closely.
Uh we did the synoptic measurements and got those completed. uh we held some public hearings uh across the basin that were necessary uh for administration and then here recently we've been identifying how we can uh achieve minimal water administration in the water districts where we have large roles uh for the remainder of this fiscal year. So it's not no travel but we're trying to uh eliminate overnight travel and then be very conscientious of how we're doing same day travel. Um, I talked with Sasha earlier this morning and she says we're good. If we continue with this practice through the end of the fiscal year, we're going to make it.
Um, we're not going to have any problems and then hopefully we can get back to uh business as usual once we turn over into the next fiscal year.
And and I and I will say slightly in just slightly not in jazz that no memo that I've issued as director has gotten more attention and feedback and critical comment from staff than the memo to limit and restrict travel. So I'd like to get us back to business as normal as soon as we can.
Hey, we appreciate staff uh making those adjustments uh to their schedules and their routines to allow you to meet the governor's criteria.
>> And I'm sorry for the impact that it's had on your programs.
>> So, switching now to that second heading there of administration.
You know, having heard the presentations and the resolutions that you've passed, it's no surprise to anyone in the room today that it's going to be a significant it is and will continue to be a significantly challenging water supply year. Uh it is a bad year because it's been very warm. Uh and where we are at normal or above normal precipitation, it has largely come in rain as rain. And the problem with receiving that precipitation is is rain is it affects the way that we can fill our reservoirs.
But it also just moves through the system much quicker than normal. So we are going to be hitting more more or how should I say this lower base flow conditions because of the warmth and the amount of rain that fell as precipitation than we would normally see. Um then we do have drought uh conditions in place across most of the state and I issued a drought declaration order statewide. That's the first time we've ever done that. Uh probably six weeks ago in April now, giving water users more flexibility in being able to do emergency transfers of water. So different than the water supply bank, different process, but more flexibility to get water where they need it.
So I looked at the water masters report that I think was published today for water district one. That's the upper snake. And I believe that report says that about 10% of the total storage content has already been delivered. So that's a 4 million plus acre foot system. Over 400,000 acre feet of storage has already been delivered. It's unlikely that that use will get cancelled in a year like this. So you know that that's a pretty startling number that we've gone through 10% of our storage water to this point in the irrigation season. And that's because we're seeing uh very high demand requirements for irrigation in the upper snake. Again, most of you know that and are feeling that.
>> You know, Matt, that's 10% of space.
It's it's a much higher percentage of the actual uh storage we the fuel we have available.
>> And then we have been and continue to be at the 1900 priority date on the Snake River below uh Blackfoot near Blackfoot.
And that tells us that the seniors uh in that system are not getting their full amount of water under the natural flow rights.
And so that's a good transition into the surface water corion delivery call. Uh there was an April injury determination that I made uh of 181,000 acre feet uh at the first part of April that effectively curtails all groundwater rights on the eastern Snake plane.
Everything junior to October 11th, 1900.
So we're immediately this year where we were in the middle of the season last year where all there are no groundwater rights on the Eastern Snake Plane that are senior to that that can pump absent an approved mitigation plan.
Uh fortunately more and more water rights are covered by approved mitigation plans every week. Uh I asked legal for a summary of the number of orders that we issued in April and so far in May. I didn't get it in time for this, but it has been significant. We've had a lot of contested case matters uh involving AMB irrigation district water users in the big lost and what we call the upper big lost and in the little lost uh seeking to get protection under uh existing groundwater management plans. Uh and as of today I can report that uh AM was successful in getting a two-year stipulated mitigation plan in place. Uh and then the big lost, the little lost, and the upper big lost are all covered by the groundwater district's approved mitigation plan. And that's somewhere on the order of 1,800 to 2200 groundwater rights, largely irrigation rights, uh that are protected. Um I wish I had some total numbers now of water rights, but just off the top of my head, we're probably administering something in the order of 8,000 groundwater rights with somewhere between six and 7,000 of them protected by approved mitigation plans.
That said, I issued a curtailment order last week that still identified more than 950 rights that are subject to curtailment now uh because they are not protected by an approved mitigation plan.
So, water district should be implementing that cretailment now. Uh the department uh is going to be doing its due diligence in the office here for the next couple of days and then moving to the field to support water districts uh and our regional offices to carry that out uh here in the coming weeks.
I'll just say that we're going to >> What was that number unprotected still?
>> Uh it was more than 950. That's what I recall. 970 maybe.
So the top order of business is to go out and confirm that those irrigators that were subject to notices of violation processes last year who are not protected by mitigation plans again this year are still cretailing. They're obviously our highest priority because of the history that we have with them last year of non-compliance.
We also held expansion hearings in Rock Creek and Marsh Creek to again expand the area of common groundwater supply potentially this year to bring in those basins.
So we're I think of this as like the department as a big boa constrictor.
We're eating these basins, bringing them in. You can see the plug flow moving through the snake. Then we take the next bite and that plug flow moves through the snake. uh and it is painful as people get up to speed and and start uh to manage and mitigate for their groundwater use in the way that everyone does in the other basins and on the eastern Snake plane. Uh and we're probably going to be in this process of taking bite-sized chunks to grow that conjunctive administrative area over the next couple of years. But hopefully we will get to the other end of this uh and in years this will become business as normal for all of the irrigators.
And supporting all of this is the new bureau that I've reported to you, the Water Administration Bureau. We've been fully staffed, although due to a promotion, I think we have one vacant spot now that we have to backfill. Um, so that's 17 people dedicated towards water administration support and and they're going to be busy this year.
Switching topics and going to basin 37, we have a groundwater management area that's been in place there since 1991.
As we discussed earlier, there's currently a three-year groundwater management plan in place that expires uh December 31 of next year. Uh Heidi gave you a good presentation on a component of that management plan, which is to develop and implement computerized accounting.
And like many other basins in the southern part of the state, they don't have very good hydraologic conditions.
Someone made the comment that not only are the conditions bad, but the forecasts seem like they probably undersold how severe water supply conditions are going to be in that basin. There was an advisory committee meeting earlier this week that I attended where we reviewed with the groundwater users and the surface water users what components of the management plan were being adhered to and then to identify if any of the components of that plan were not being adhered to. And significant pieces of that are reductions in groundwater consumptive use, delivery of storage water, and maintaining flow targets. Specifically 32 CFS on Littlewood Silver Creek. I get confused right where it is.
>> Station 10.
>> Yeah. St at station 10. That's on the Littlewood. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So below the confluence. So on the Littlewood. And the good news from that meeting was that the groundwater users came and presented to me uh reductions in groundwater pumping that were not only consistent with the requirements of the plan in baseline years and then there's additional pumping reductions that are required in a dry year like this and there's a a formal way that the type of year is determined but then on top of that additional reductions and at least in my notes it was reported to me that South Valley Groundwater District is on 50% groundwater use this year and that Galina Groundwater District is reducing their pumping this year by 40%. And I wasn't quite sure how to reconcile that with the following that also had to occur. And South Valley reported that they're following about 1,700 acres this year, which is in excess of the following target in the plan. And Galina Groundwater District is following about 250 acres, which is also in excess of their following obligations in the plan.
Now, we are right at the minimums at station 32. I don't know what the results were when we went out and did a QAQC uh inspection earlier this week, but I expect we will go below the 32 CFS uh for periods of time during this irrigation season.
The other significant component is delivery of storage water under the plan. says that the two groundwater districts with contributions from uh other parties uh shall try to deliver up to depending on conditions more than 5,000 acre feet of storage water. Uh and in the meeting that we had on Tuesday, the people that were responsible for going out and getting that and thought that they had options in place for storage water reported back that they did in fact have no storage water uh secured in time. and the options that they had in place were contingent on certain water supply conditions in the upper snake that do not exist right now.
Uh and so those entities that they were contracted with said consistent with the option contract that we have here, we can't and are not going to deliver the water that that we had agreed to. So nobody's violating any contracts. That's something that's happened in the past.
It's just recognition that this is a bad year. That storage use that I talked about in the upper snake. These are the kind of run-on effects that we have uh in in other places.
Galina Groundwater District reported to me several weeks ago a number of its members that they believe may have um exceeded their groundwater diversion requirements. So, we're investigating that at the department subording water district 37 in that. Uh and I've told staff we will pursue notices of violation uh where we find them in that data. Um it can be complicated because these are small uh systems in Galina groundwater district. This is heavily urbanized uh very affluent neighborhoods that have a lot of landscaping and multiple sources of water, but we're working through that. Uh I also indicated to the advisory committee on Tuesday that we would be supporting water district 37 to do inseason inspection of groundwater use this year uh so that we don't wait until the end of the season to determine uh if people were going over their pumping allocation under the groundwater management plan is one thing but it it even seems that we've been provided evidence that people are exceeding the limits of their water right. So in those instances we're going to move very quickly.
Switching to Swan Falls again. Really good discussion here. Um and I just want to say thank you to this board. Um you know in the matter of Swanf Falls trust water right management and the minimum stream flows that are established there uh in the past and again this year you've provided water that certainly makes administration easier uh and more manageable. that's probably the better term, not easier, but more manageable because of uh the delivery of that water uh that will come to Idaho Power Company and in other places where you're supporting the water users in solving some of the most severe water supply uh issues that they have this year, which again makes water administration a little bit more manageable. Uh Matt Anders did a great job presenting to you on uh the matter of Swan Falls. We had those minimum stream flow rates one time prior. We uh went below that 5600 non-errigation season uh water rate. Uh we did that again this year, but significantly greater uh period that we went under and volume of water that we went under. And then we have that forecast that was discussed that says that there's a 10% likelihood that we will go below for the first time uh ever minimum flow of 3900 cfs during the irrigation season. uh the number that he presented was 650 acre feet. I think that's the number out of um the uh spring forecast, but he acknowledged two things when he presented that to me a couple of weeks ago. One, that's trained on historical data that we're not going to see this year. And two, there are other forecasts, perhaps better forecasts than Swazi, that suggest the water deficiencies could be greater than we think. So, what I would say is 610% likelihood of 650 acre feet with significant error bars attached to that.
So, I think we're going to have to wait and see.
When we fell below minimums in March, we quickly went out and administered surface water rights that were within water districts that administered surface water, largely water district 2, which is the water district on the Midnake below Milner Dam. And so in those places I was happy when the water masses reported back to me. As soon as we went under, we curtailed the trust water rights in those systems. Now what makes Swanf Falls Trust Water Right Administration so hard is there are surface water and groundwater. Some of which are in water districts, some of which are not. And so you can move quickly where you have those water districts in place to administer surface water. It's more challenging to move to administer the groundwater rights because those trust water groundwater rights extend up into tributary basins like the big wood and the big lost and up into the Rexburg area. And so curtailment of those groundwater rights when you know that you might only be below minimum flow for a couple of days uh is difficult because we anticipate that we could go under again. We are getting our water districts primed and ready to administer again. We are going to be sending out notice uh to all trust water right holders. Uh there is an entity called the Swanfalls implementation group that has a meeting coming up next week. I think >> exactly >> Brian uh and you know that group uh is a collection of water users and state uh agencies that is working to develop a management plan uh develop technical tools such as the forecast uh and a dashboard that we're developing that's going to go live here soon that allows you to understand where trust water rights are, what water administration looks like and what flows uh at various segments of the Snake River look like.
importantly uh at Swad Swan Falls and then that group's also working to establish guidance for an important component of this which is the term limit review of all trust water rights.
So trust water rights that's a complicated group of water rights. uh they were developed as part of the uh Idaho Power Company, state of Idaho Swanf Falls uh agreement and and basically the state ended up with a block of water that it held in trust and then it issued water rights against that block of water. But in recognition that that water might not be as secure as other sources of water, uh we condition those groundwater and surface water rights with uh term limit reviews in recognition that the water supply might not be there at some point in the future or it might stop being in the public interest to use that water right. And there have been significant legal questions about how to undertake uh term limit reviews. As you might imagine, we have a body of 5,000 plus trustw rights that were developed over the course of 40 years. And unfortunately, they weren't consistently issued throughout that process, which is understandable because we litigated that process and there were continuing uh understandings that developed over that period of time.
So, we have some questions to the attorney generals right now to help us answer how to move forward with that term limit review. And I'm committed as director to doing that. It's something that has been long overdue.
But as Shelley Keane, one of my deputy directors, always says, there's always something to do with this agency. Uh, and so when you come to work and you have those other somethings to do, it's it's e easy for something as difficult as the trust water right issue to linger. Um, but I I am committed to undertaking that trustwwater right uh term limit review when we have the sufficient legal uh feedback in place and that will help make management of this issue much easier as we move forward.
I think I'll conclude my remarks there, Mr. Chairman, unless there's any questions or other topics you'd like to put on.
>> Okay. Uh, go ahead, Dean. Mr. Chairman, Director Weaver, when do you expect your word back from the attorney generals on the questions that you've >> probably this summer, >> right? Chairman Matt, that was well presented and very cintillating. If I could suggest anything, um, you could bring a beef knife for emphasizing some of your points. But my real question is, um, have we got the, um, well levels for 2026, the synopsis, is that in and I just missed it or is that still in being?
>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olmstead. So I reported that we completed our synoptic measurements on the east the fieldwork. Uh there is now a several month process where we evaluate that and then prepare uh the diagrams and maps that demonstrate to you the changes in aquafer storage content. Uh and typically at least historically the last five or six years that gets presented to your water supply committee in the July or August time frame. I can report that staff are working on that. We know that it's one of the most anticipated publications that the department makes >> discussion for all of us because we're going to get into um to me years like this really point out the need for possibly the the state or the water board to be considering enhancing the crep program. At some point the water becomes more valuable than farming marginal ground. And and if we don't pump it out, we don't have to put it back. It might be more economically feasible to to um prep program some of the quite a bit of more margin land to than to um you know build very expensive recharge and those kind of things should be one of the tools that we're probably underutilizing I think. And it's I know I've heard as high as $400 an acre in Cashia County, but but way less than that maybe in some of the trust water areas and those kind of things.
Something to think about for future Mr. Chairman and board member Olmstead.
I agree. And we've concluded now two open enrollment periods with CREP. um those are hard to anticipate and the duration of them is hard to anticipate.
Going into these two uh enrollment periods that have incurred earlier this year, we had something on the order of 8 to 9,000 acres enrolled in crepe. I think the statewide limit is 40 or 50,000 acres. Uh and through those enrollments, we are now looking about 7,000 additional acres that have come into that program. Um and but I am told that the most recent enrollment period of which most of the acreage came out of um Camas Cashia County uh is the largest single enrollment uh that's occurred. So I think there's a lot of appetite for that right now given where we are with water supply conditions commodity pricing uh and then knowing that we're approaching the end of this four-year settlement agreement on the eastern snake plane. What I would say is that there's a significant uh block in the federal component of that plan which limits the amount of money that an individual grower can get to $50,000.
And I've heard Mr. uh board member Stevenson speak to this and and maybe he can speak to it, but if there were any way to move that number, uh it was a number established I believe in 2000 2002. So even if you just account for inflation, it's greatly um outdated. But then if there a way that it could vary depending on the groundwater management efforts in a certain place. So could that number be higher if we are in a moratorium area or a groundwater management area?
>> Okay. Make a comment on that.
>> So that number has been there for a long time and actually was even before our crepe. The crepe program itself is been designed actually if you look at it nationally what we're doing on irrigated pumping is a very small part of it's mostly waterways in the Midwest but we shoehorned his program in years ago to make it work here but you know that the single largest impediment to getting it is the payment limitation and that's you know that and and as the rents ran up from like the local rents it just capped more it just capped more people out of the program. That's something you we'd have to work with our maybe our congressional delegation and uh we just got a new farm bill and they didn't get nothing happened there which isn't surprised but there may be other opportunities but I think the place the only place we're going to really get that done is with our congressional delegation.
>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, I know you likely have an upcoming trip to DC this year. That maybe could be a talking point. Um, it was comments that I made when I visited our congressional delegates uh, several weeks ago. And just as a reminder, that program manager is Rob Sharpack. I believe he presented to you recently uh, and he is in the Soil Water Conservation Commission. And I can just report that that's another example of the synergies between our two agencies uh with our ability to get uh press releases out, information out, communication out, and then work water right staff or prioritize water right staff to do the review of water rights.
I think that was partly why we were so successful in the last two rounds of you know almost doubling the enrolled acres in the state. So a real success story.
Dean, >> one more comment. Uh, Ron Sharbank, he put, you know, when this when the signups are coming, he was really getting the word out to folks through the groundwater districts through executive director at Englewood and stuff. So, you know, I just want to compliment. They did a really good job on getting word out that the signups were open again.
>> Okay. Um, you know, the farm bill isn't through the Senate yet. We may want to have Mark reach out to Senators Thish and Crapo. Neither one of those sit on a but I think they still influence some potential changes to the final version of the farm bill. So we we might jump on that and at least get their staff up to speed.
>> I think Senator Rich is going to be in Idaho here next week. I think I've been invited to go talk to him about something at Shan Falls.
>> Okay. Right. Joanne. So have the is it too late for the trust water right holders to potentially get together and buy out acreage for one year perhaps 10 years out of protection but maybe on a yearbyear basis buy out some I'm sure the fields have already been planted that are going to be planted so >> Mr. Chairman, board member Cole Hansen, good question. I think it's probably too late to do something like that in this irrigation season, but that's certainly something that might be a viable component of a management plan and is something that we've thought about. Um, and again, that management plan is something that is a to-do item of that Swanfalls implementation group.
>> Yeah. We've got to come up with a way for the trust water right holders mitigate in some fashion either through curtailment or providing some sort of a alternative uh to meet the the minimums at the Murphy gauge. So that group's working on this.
>> I think Mr. Mr. Chairman and Director Weaver, I think when we get some answers back from the AG, I think that will give give some direction on what which direction people can go on that to try to we passed a resolution in 2015 of how to handle these shortfalls on an interim basis. I I think uh we're probably towards the end of interim and need to come up with a a permanent solution fairly soon.
Anything else? Matt, I'm gonna I know people are tired and ready to be done, but I'm going to ask one more question. I'm going to walk you back to the surface war coalition call and the methodology order, and you indicated 180,000 acre foot projected shortfall from the April calculations.
Part of that typically has had a reasonable carryover in it under these conditions where there isn't that much storage and a large portion of the shortfall is due to just lack of natural flow water in the river or storage filled.
Does the carryover component of that is that a static number or is that number adjust depending on the conditions for that particular season?
>> Mr. Chairman, you are down in the weeds of the methodology order.
That number is not static. It gets updated every year at the end of the irrigation season. And and so at the end of this year, that will be up upgraded updated. The question that I have in my mind now based on your question is what is the effect of administration look like as we go into this year? some people of which are subject to the reasonable carryover um curtailment from the previous year. Really, I think the effect is that they were supposed to be cretailed through the non-errigation season. And so, most of them are irrigation rights, that's not very impactful. And now that we have an April injury determination made, which likely is not going to go down this year in July and at the time of need, they will just continuously be subject to curtailment as we move towards resetting that uh reasonable carryover number in November.
>> Yeah. I'm just wondering when when the final number comes out in November, it it takes into account uh everything not just uh the shortfall SWC in physical water.
>> So the that calculation that's made at the end of the season is very straightforward. It establishes reasonable carryover volumes for each entity and it looks at their remaining storage and it's just the difference there.
>> Okay.
All right. Thank you.
Appreciate you. Uh you do a great job for us and and uh glad to have you here.
>> Keep your own.
>> Okay. Uh M uh board members, are there any non-action items that we need to discuss?
Yeah, >> I found out from they said you how much you can fill and then perk said well mind and you need to study it. So do you know how that's going to affect water administration in 37?
Any idea?
>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barker, the department has been on site with Bigwood Canal Company and representatives from Furk uh evaluating the condition of that dam. Uh there are deferred maintenance items there that have gotten pretty severe that have resulted in settling on that dam. Uh and then Bigwood Canal Company went into a relicensing effort that I think really put the microscope on that dam. Uh and there has been uh communication from FK to the Bigwood Canal Company establishing deadlines at which they need to hire an engineer, do technical uh review and make a report recommending improvements to the dam uh and a matrix of which improvements can relate to which volume of storage content.
Did they restrict storage this year or not?
>> I am told that they will not implement any storage restrictions until the end of this irrigation season.
>> That's the way kind of >> now >> they're not going to get to even half full this year. So, it's probably defer the year anyway.
>> On Tuesday at the advisory committee meeting, we heard they have 45 days of storage water this year.
It has no effect on administration.
>> Not that not that I know of.
Just related to that, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Barker and Vonyie did file a motion on behalf of the board and the department and perhaps some other state agencies requesting uh our ability to intervene in that fk matter just to have a seat at the table. uh and be able to support whatever that might look like Big Wood Canal Company as we move through that. Um so I think it's an issue that's very much up in the air now waiting for the engineer technical review to to identify preliminary costs associated with improvements to that dam uh to be able to get back to historical storage conditions.
>> Great. All right, Mr. Pat, do you want to outline for us uh what we have for the rest of this meeting and then go over the next meeting?
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh you have lunch waiting for you next door just as normal. Uh then you are free this afternoon since we made it through today's agenda before before lunchtime.
Um, >> technically not before lunchtime, but before we go have lunch, >> pretty close. Uh, reconvene at PUR at 8:00 tomorrow morning and we'll have a couple Yes. in this room here. We'll have a couple of presentations from water district 63 and uh their uh related presenters on the treasure valley drains issue and then we will load up and go out and take a field trip and and go look at uh some of the proposed solutions that uh they're working on. I hope to have you back here and on the road by 11 or 11:30 in the morning.
Don't want to make it any any later than you otherwise would have done.
>> I'm going on the field of my my truck.
That's that's what I was Dale and I were kind of wondering about in order to get him out, you know, before traffic gets bad heading north. Is there a place that I could help him deliver his truck to or he >> I'll drive it there.
>> How far out did we get on on the shore?
>> We'll be out uh north of Nampa, south of Star area.
down the road.
>> Right. So, I think Dale could just drive his own pickup on the tour.
>> Yeah.
>> And then leave straight when the when the tour is done.
>> No sneak.
>> Well, we'll see.
>> Point me in the right direction. I'll get there.
>> Yeah. Well, we'll make sure that somebody tags along with a lot better than me, >> huh?
>> Okay. So that that's what we're doing.
>> Correct. Um your next regularly scheduled meeting is set for >> it. Okay. If I invite Senator to come on this tour of course constrained about where we can go.
>> We haven't I haven't heard that much concern from Daniel um about site access. So >> So I would have meet here and go out.
Yes. Or or in fact they could ride with us, you know, assuming we have seats.
>> Are there rebel rousers?
>> They're not going to want to come over.
>> Oh, that's okay. So, they just may meet us there. Okay. We'll figure it out.
Yeah, invite them.
>> Yes, by all means. Uh, next regular meeting is set for August 6th and 7th in Rexburg and we'll do a uh Teton Dam tour associated with that meeting. And then after that is September 17th and 18th.
Uh that meeting had been set for Burley, but we made the decision to reschedu that to Boisee. Uh because um some of you all may be in DC earlier that week and uh flying in and flying back to Boisey Wednesday afternoon and having to be in Berley the next morning might have been a little little challenging. So move that meeting to Boyisey.
>> Where is the excitement September in Berley?
We got the fair there, the state fair.
>> Yeah, >> we'll um >> we can have a water skiing party.
>> We we we will be scheduling a uh probably a storage committee meeting sometime during that time period >> and do a field trip out to Menadoka Dam.
>> So those that want to can can experience >> We may be starting an art project, too.
>> Oh, that's a good idea, too. Okay. So, we can experience the excitement of of early in September.
>> Yeah.
September.
>> Is there any formal meeting at Sun Valley?
>> There is not.
>> I believe you should all be registered for the Sun Valley conference.
>> I'm looking at my to double check.
>> All of you have a memorandum that registered files. Yes, you are all set.
>> My did an A+ on that one in there early.
Okay. All right. Any questions about the rest of the proceedings here tomorrow or what's coming up? I think we're good.
All right. Where's that motion you've been waiting to make all day?
>> I move that we adjourn this meeting.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> All in favor say I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. When you're
Related Videos
The Bay Poisoned by Mercury #shorts
harmedino
289 views•2026-06-01
Calgary Flood Watch Day 4 🚨 Bow River Not Expected to Peak Until Tomorrow
RealtorDhirYYC
103 views•2026-06-01
Invisible Rivers in the Sky Dump 40% of Antarctica's Snow #Shorts
BrainyWhizBros
637 views•2026-06-02
You must see this..My narrowboat journey continues to the end of the Bridgewater canal..#945
NarrowboatWill
2K views•2026-06-03
Glowing Blue Powder Turned Brazilian City Into Radioactive Wasteland
Adnan-Sandhu976
637 views•2026-05-31
Giant Volcano in Italy Is Waking Faster Than Expected
BRIGHTSIDEOFFICIAL
920 views•2026-06-06
Mostly sunny | KING 5 Weather
KING5Seattle
246 views•2026-06-02
How China Is Reversing Desertification
BadrRenton
24K views•2026-05-31
