ESHMC Meeting Notes April 7th, 2010

Item 1 - Introductions were made, and an attendance list was circulated. The following were present at the meeting:

- David Blew

- Bryce Contor

- Rick Raymondi

- Allan Wylie

- Chuck Brendecke

- Sean Vincent

- Stacey Taylor

- Jim Brannon

- Chuck Brockway

- Mike McVay

- Jon Bowling

- Jennifer Johnson

- Brian Patton

- John Koreny

- Harvey Walker

- Greg Sullivan

- Shaun Parkinson

- Lyle Swank

- John Lindgren

- Derek Blestrud

- Jeff Peppersack

- Matt Weaver

- Wilma Robertson

- Hal Anderson*

*Present but did not sign attendance sheet

Willem Schreuder joined the meeting via Polycom.

Harvey Walker attended the meeting representing the Eastern Idaho Water Rights Coalition. He expressed interest and has joined the committee.

Item 2 – Hal Anderson began the meeting by providing the committee a progress report on ESPA CAMP Implementation. He said that recent work done in coordination with the Interim Natural Resources Legislative Committee included developing legislation to fund implementation actions and infrastructure development. The legislation provided for fee collection mechanisms for counties and water districts. Hal indicated that the funding mechanisms were seen as a tax and that certain irrigation districts were lobbying to avoid being included in CAMP Implementation. The lobbying resulted in the legislation being held, and the CAMP process had been halted.

Hal reported that the Governor held a meeting on March 2nd at IDWR with selected legislators, CAMP members, and the Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB). At the meeting, it was proposed that IWRB loan repayment funds be used as matching grants (state contribution) for projects. The Governor requested candidate projects by March 12th to be considered by the CAMP Implementation Committee and added that it was important to keep the CAMP process going. The Implementation Committee review was to be completed by June 1st, and the Governor and the IWRB would decide which projects would go forward. Hal indicated that 8 projects were being reviewed, and the proposal period was not complete. He said that there would be a follow-up meeting on April 29th, and that the Implementation Committee would make recommendations to the Board at the May meeting.

Six proposals being considered include:

1)  Thousand Springs Pump Back – using tail water from a hatchery to be re-used to convert ground water irrigation above the rim to surface water.

2)  Enhanced managed recharge at Egin Lakes.

3)  A gravity pipeline to irrigate lands within the Big Wood system.

4)  Recharge monitoring at the Idaho Irrigation District.

5)  Obligate funds for recharge during the 2011 irrigation season.

6)  Site construction for the Mile Post 31 managed recharge project.

Hal summarized by saying that the Implementation Committee led by Clive Strong will continue the effort to develop a long-term funding mechanism. Other goals are to institutionalize the process and develop the procedures for operating the managed recharge program.

At this point, the committee took a short break to acknowledge Hal Anderson’s retirement.

Item 3 – Shaun Parkinson provided a guest presentation on the Idaho Power cloud seeding efforts currently underway. He began by indicating that cloud seeding in southern Idaho is done to provide snow pack enhancement or augmentation, and then he presented some of the background science. According to Shaun, cloud seeding is accomplished using ground generators and aircraft with silver iodide as the nuclei. The science has been proven by lab work, plume tracing in Utah, trace chemistry using a dual tracer in the Payette drainage in Idaho, and by aircraft data collection.

Shaun indicated that Idaho Power needs to demonstrate the effectiveness of cloud seeding by showing that additional snow accumulates in the target area. He described the sampling effort and analytical program in the Payette watershed that involve tracers and evaluating snowpack density. The results show a 13% increase in snow water equivalent in cloud seeded snow. Overall, a 7% increase in snow pack can be expected over the snow season with a potential increase of 7 to 35% in snow fall from an individual storm.

In response to a question from Jim Brannon regarding the number of storms that are candidates for cloud seeding, Shaun said that approximately 30% of storms have the correct moisture and temperature profiles. Rick Raymondi asked how the data regarding moisture and temperature are obtained, and Shaun responded that weather balloons are launched to collect data, some by Idaho Power and some by NOAA. Chuck Brendecke asked if historical data are used to select cloud seeding sites, and Shaun said that the historical data are not always saved, so plume modeling is used to define sites.

Sean Vincent asked if cloud seeding is robbing precipitation from storms that would otherwise fall downwind. Shaun indicated that studies show a neutral to positive effect downwind from cloud seeding, although downwind precipitation could be reduced in some storms. He said that cloud seeding can be expected to remove about 0.9% additional water vapor from a winter storm. He added that there are no harmful effects from the silver iodide because the quantity is small, and the form of silver is not toxic. A DEQ review found that it is unlikely that cloud seeding will cause detectable increase or chronic effects to aquatic organisms.

Shaun said that at the request of shareholders Idaho Power initially began cloud seeding in 1996 using a contractor. The cloud seeding program was temporarily suspended, and an internal planning program began during 1997 – 1998. The cloud seeding program was re-instated in 2003. Greg Sullivan asked if Shaun felt that enough has been done to demonstrate a positive effect from cloud seeding. He responded yes, particularly in the Payette. He added that the Desert Research Institute in Nevada has accumulated significant knowledge, but more targeted work could be done. Shaun summarized by indicating that there has been an increase of approximately 120,000 to 200,000 A-F in storage attributable to cloud seeding at a cost of $4.25 to $7.00/A-F.

The discussion then focused on funding. Shaun said there was some local funding plus Idaho Power’s contribution for cloud seeding in eastern Idaho. Brian Patton said that Idaho Power’s effort in eastern Idaho is considered their contribution towards CAMP implementation. Lyle Swank said several irrigation districts in WD01 matched up to 1/3 of the Idaho Power’s contribution.

Lyle then asked how dense is adequate for the network of generators, and Derek Blestrud of Idaho Power said the literature indicates that 5 to 7 miles. Brian Patton was interested in how soon the benefits of cloud seeding in the eastern Snake could be quantified. Shaun said that Idaho Power is working on it, but that sufficient data are not available for the eastern Snake. Jon Boling said we could apply the results from other areas to the eastern Snake, but Idaho Power has been hesitant to do that. Sean Vincent asked if Idaho Power was prepared for lawsuits if flooding occurs. Shaun responded that the company has criteria for suspension of the program, they don’t have an insurance program for this, and lawsuits of this nature have not been successful. John Boling added that cloud seeding in the Payette is shut down if it appears that the Weiser River will flood.

Item 4 - Lyle Swank and Jeff Peppersack led a discussion regarding the transfer tool. Lyle began with a brief presentation of water right issues in the Upper Snake. Greg Sullivan asked about a new transfer tool that had been developed. Rick Raymondi and Jeff Peppersack explained that this new tool was developed by Bryce Contor to satisfy private customers. Bryce then provided information on the nature of the tool. Chuck Brockway stated that either the transfer tool or the full model will be used for transfers, and then asked if the tool developed by Bryce was acceptable to the Department. Jeff Peppersack said that he thought it would be OK for use, but it has not been reviewed by the Department. Chuck Brendecke asked if the Department will keep the tool updated with model development, and Jeff responded yes and indicated that is one of the reasons for the delay.

Greg Sullivan said that there had been a discussion regarding changing the model reaches and asked for the status on that subject. Jeff said that changing the reaches had been a point of discussion but that it was necessary to make sure that injury does not result from such an undertaking. Greg then asked if the Department will offer insight into any changes to the transfer tool, and Jeff said that if change is warranted, the new policy will be offered to the committee for discussion. He added that if more model reaches are created, there is a greater potential for impacts to a reach. John Koreny asked if there could be less reaches, and Greg Sullivan asked if the transfer tool reaches could be aligned with surface water administration reaches. Lyle responded that input would be needed regarding the impact of combining reaches.

In response to the discussion, Jeff said that it is a technical and policy decision regarding how to process transfers and that there are no Department rules regarding this matter. Chuck Brockway mentioned that the Department allowed the combining of reaches in approving the transfer of an FMC water right from near Pocatello to a location near Neeley. Jeff Peppersack responded that there is not a hard rule regarding combining reaches as long as no one is injured and that some flexibility will be allowed along with the recognition that there is a level of inaccuracy involved. Chuck Brockway then said that we need to deal with the inaccuracy and to increase the defensibility of the computed numbers. Jeff said that if better numbers are derived, we will apply them to the analysis.

Chuck Brockway then brought up that in the Conjunctive Management Rules, the area of hydraulic connection is defined by the old Garabedian model, and this model is no longer used. Allan Wylie said that the subject of the Area of Common Ground Water should be kept out of the ESHMC. Chuck responded that when evaluating a mitigation plan, the boundaries of the Garabedian model are considered, and that IDWR should propose a change to the Conjunctive Management Rules. He added that it is not possible to model the old boundaries, and the rules should reflect whatever the current model is.

Chuck Brendecke asked for more details about potential changes to the transfer tool. Jeff Peppersack said that in response to the recognized shortcomings in the current tool for processing multiple transfers, Matt Weaver created an IDWR spreadsheet tool. Chuck Brockway said that as an example, currently you run all 4 transfers separately to see if any mitigation is required. Then you can run all together to see if mitigation occurs.

Allan Wylie mentioned that the Menan gage could be used in establishing model reaches for the transfer tool. Lyle said the gage was installed to help resolve reach gains and loss components. Chuck Brockway said that having shorter or more reaches would make transfers more difficult and that analyses need to be done to determine the appropriate number and size of the reaches. Jeff Peppersack said that we need to determine how any changes might affect water right holders. Chuck Brockway requested another workshop, and Jeff said he will consider the request, and he is still working on the action items from the last work shop.

Item 5 – Wilma Robertson updated the committee regarding the progress made in developing detailed hydrography within the ESPA model boundary for the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). She showed areas within the boundary where work has been completed and areas where work is in progress. Wilma discussed the efforts at the North Side Canal Company, Burley Irrigation District, Fort Hall Irrigation District, Freemont-Madison Irrigation District, Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Company, and Water District 37. She mentioned that she has added over 200 names for canals, laterals, etc. in the North Side service area alone. She planned to add points such as pumps and headgates to the NHD.

Chuck Brockway recommended that IDWR interface the hydrography with water rights administration. Sean Vincent said that the new water right accounting program will be tied to the NHD. Chuck Brockway asked if there could be a work shop for canal companies and irrigation districts to train the managers and hydrographers to enter data into the NHD. Rick Raymondi said that this could be done using CAMP money. Bryce suggested that this should be done during the winter.

Item 6 – Bryce Contor led a discussion regarding the mixed source lands and canal seepage datasets. He began by discussing the water budget indicating that in ESPAM version 1.1, canal seepage and mixed source lands refined spatial distribution but did not change the water budget. He added that in ESPAM version 2, the approach causes these datasets to change the water budget. He then said that in 2009, the committee directed IWRRI to refine the canal seepage and mixed source lands fractions. IWRRI then made ad hoc adjustments. Bryce recommended that, after three rounds of adjustments and comments, it is time to go forward with model calibration. He explained the guiding principles, the process, assumptions, the progress, and the preliminary outcomes for the ad hoc adjustments. Bryce said that the results seem reasonable, and he is performing a cross check with data.