Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council - Issues Scoping Report

Montana State Water Plan Update - Upper Missouri River Basin

Prepared by: Upper Missouri River Basin Advisory Council Jim Beck, Chair | Vicki Baker, Vice Chair

and

Kathleen Williams 202 S Black, Ste 505 Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: 406-570-1917 e-mail: [email protected]

Adopted by the Council December 17, 2013

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared based on information shared by agency staff, as well as the Council's resource experts and many public representatives who attended regional issue public scoping meetings or otherwise shared their expertise and views. Figures in this report are from presentations at these meetings. The Council thanks those who have helped create a productive beginning dialogue about Montana's water resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...... 1 About the Upper Missouri River Basin Advisory Council ...... 2 Purpose of this Document ...... 3 Summary of Information Presented to the Council About the Upper Missouri Basin ...... 6 Water Resources...... 7 Water Use by Sector ...... 12 Water Administration ...... 20 Tools to Accommodate Change ...... 22 Building the Baseline ...... 24 What's Working Well ...... 24 Water Oversupplies ...... 25 Water Shortages ...... 25 Water-Related Trends and Projections ...... 26 Data Gaps ...... 29 Issues Identified in the Scoping Process ...... 30 Moving Toward Water Plan Recommendations ...... 32 How to Contribute to this Process ...... 33 Next Steps ...... 33

APPENDICES A. Montana State Water Plan Statute ...... A-1 B. Basin Advisory Council Guidelines ...... B-1 C. Detailed Issues Scoping Input as of mid-October 2013 ...... C-1 D. Results of December Public Input Period ...... D-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Evening Light Illuminates Smith River Cliffs ...... 1 Figure 2. Public Issues Scoping Meeting - Dillon...... 2 Figure 3. Public Scoping Meeting, Small Group Report-Out ...... 3 Figure 4. Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council Fort Benton Meeting Participants ...... 5 Figure 5. Land Cover and Jurisdiction in the Basin ...... 6 Figure 6. Major Streams in the Upper Missouri Basin ...... 6 Figure 7. Two Contrasting Rivers ...... 7 Figure 8. Basin Average Annual Precipitation ...... 7 Figure 9. An Example of Snow Monitoring Data ...... 8 Figure 10. Example Hydrographs for a Basin Stream ...... 8 Figure 11. Major Reservoirs ...... 9 Figure 12. Gibson Reservoir ...... 9 Figure 13. Canyon Ferry Dam and Reservoir ...... 10 Figure 14. Canyon Ferry Reservoir Storage Trends and Joint Use Zone ...... 10 Figure 15. Effect of Canyon Ferry Reservoir on Missouri River Flows ...... 10 Figure 16. Diagrams of Gaining and Losing Streams...... 11 Figure 17. Surface and Groundwater Relationships in the Upper Beaverhead ...... 11 Figure 18. Statewide Irrigation Statistics ...... 12 Figure 19. 2003 Statewide Irrigation Diversions, by Crop ...... 12 Figure 20. Comparison of Flood and Sprinkler Irrigation ...... 13 Figure 21. Water Cycle Diagram For Irrigation Water Use ...... 13 Figure 22. City of Bozeman Water Demand, By Use Type ...... 15 Figure 23. Schematic of a Stream Cross-Section ...... 15 Figure 24. Two Examples of Stream Habitat Complexity ...... 16 Figure 25. Example of Dynamic Hydrograph, Big Hole River ...... 16 Figure 26. A Malting Plant Near Great Falls ...... 17 Figure 27. Major Hydroelectric Facilities in the Upper Missouri Basin...... 17 Figure 28. Missouri Mainstem Flow and Cochrane Hydroelectric Water Claim Level...... 18 Figure 29. Water-Based State Parks in the Upper Missouri Basin ...... 18 Figure 30. Missouri/Madison Corridor Recreational Use Statistics ...... 19 Figure 31. Montana Water-Related Recreation Statistics ...... 19 Figure 32. various Closures in the Upper Missouri Basin ...... 21 Figure 33. The Council at Work - Large Group and Small Group Discussions ...... 23 Figure 34. Collaborative Discussions in the Big Hole ...... 24 Figure 35. Changes in Percent of Irrigated Acres by County: 1987-2002 ...... 27 Figure 36. Reconstructed Chronologies of Spring Snowpack in Three Regions ...... 27 Figure 37. Montana 2010 to 2030 Percent Population Change Projections ...... 28 Figure 38. Well Development Reported to DNRC ...... 29 Figure 39. Council Small Group work in Fort Benton ...... 33 Figure 40. Missouri River at Fort Benton ...... 33

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. State Water Plan Update Timeline ...... 1 Table 2. Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council Members ...... 4 Table 3. Council Resource Experts ...... 5 Table 4. Associated DNRC Staff, Facilitator ...... 5 Table 5. Examples of Varied Water Use Rates ...... 14 Table 6. Proportion of Wildlife Species in Montana Dependent on Riparian and Wetland Habitats ...... 15 Table 7. Major Hydroelectric Projects in Upper Missouri Basin ...... 17 Table 8. A Selection of Tools to Accommodate Changing Water Demands ...... 22 Table 9. What's Working Well Input, Prioritized...... 24 Table 10. Data Gaps Input, Prioritized ...... 29 Table 11. Issue Themes, Prioritized ...... 30 Table 12. Next Steps and Potential Resources ...... 35

INTRODUCTION Welcome to the Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council's State Water Plan Update Issues Scoping Report.

In 2009, the Montana Legislature directed the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to update the Montana State Water Plan (85-1-203, MCA, Appendix A). In fulfilling this directive, DNRC has defined the purposes of the project as:

Provide up-to-date water resource information to better understand existing water supplies and to estimate future water demands, and Actively engage citizens in developing an adaptive State Water Plan that identifies options to meet future needs, satisfies existing consumptive and non-consumptive uses, and protects the state's water resources.

The goals of the project are to:

Document current supply and demand for water in the Clark Fork, Yellowstone, and Missouri basins Estimate increases in demand for water though 2025 Identify sources of water to meet increases in demand or decreases in supplies (frequent drought), while protecting existing beneficial uses. Provide recommendations to the 2015 Montana Legislature on options for meeting Montana's future water needs.

A generalized timeline (phases overlap) for the Water Plan Update FIGURE 1. EVENING LIGHT ILLUMINATES SMITH RIVER CLIFFS effort is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. State Water Plan Update Timeline Phase I: Issue Scoping: Spring/Summer 2013 Establish Basin Advisory Councils and initiate issues scoping December Issues Scoping reports for each basin due to DNRC Phase II: Technical Studies and Feedback: Summer 2013 - Winter 2014 Compile and Analyze Information March 2014 Complete additional technical studies Phase III: Recommendations and Plan Development: Spring 2014 Councils develop recommendations Summer 2014 DNRC/Councils finalize draft basin plans September 2014 Draft State Plan (all basins combined) due to DNRC Director December 2014 State Plan update complete; presented to Legislature

The planning process envisions the deliverable for Phase I being: A water resource Issues Scoping Report that identifies relevant water resource issues and will assist with guiding the activities of Phases II and III in the Upper Missouri Basin. Specifically, the Report must include a prioritized list of steps, activities, tasks, or actions that will lead to developing recommendations and water management strategies and plans in Phases II and III.

1 | P a g e

To actively engage citizens in this project, DNRC commissioned the formation of a Basin Advisory Council in each of four major drainage basins - the Yellowstone, Upper Missouri (Marias and above), Lower Missouri (below the Marias), and the Clark Fork/Kootenai. The legislation allowed up to 20 members on each council, representing both the geographic diversity and the diversity of water resource interests within each basin. DNRC and other agencies and experts provide technical support and water resource data to the Councils. This report relates to the Upper Missouri Basin and Council.

ABOUT THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN ADVISORY COUNCIL After a broad, participatory, and extensive nomination and recruiting effort that involved over 150 organizations and individuals, in late August 2013 DNRC appointed a 20-member Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council. Council members were selected for diversity in geographic representation, scope of interests in the basin, their willingness to abide by the DNRC-developed Council Guidelines (Appendix B), experience or interest in collaborative processes, and willingness to attend two meetings in 2013 and up to six meetings in 2014. The members and their affiliations are listed in Table 2. Also appointed were Resource Experts to represent their agency and contribute their professional expertise to the project. Select DNRC staff are assigned to the project from both the Helena central office as well as relevant regional field offices. They are listed in Tables 3 and 4.

COUNCIL ISSUE SCOPING The Council held a Kickoff meeting September 5-6 in Three Forks, Montana, where they met each other, heard presentations from resource experts, discussed basin issues, and confirmed the remainder of the issue scoping process. They then held five regional public scoping meetings in Great Falls (September 30), Conrad (October 1), Helena (October 2), Bozeman (October 8), and Dillon (October 9). All meetings were in the evening and widely advertised in local print media and through Council member FIGURE 2. PUBLIC ISSUES SCOPING MEETING - DILLON and organizational networks.

The Council and public meetings followed a similar format, with resource presentations in the first half and small group issue discussions in the second half. Participants in small groups listed their issues, then prioritized and reported their top three for full group discussion. Over 90 people attended and participated in the public scoping meetings. The small groups at the public meetings led their own discussions, with Council members and resource experts listening and providing support to the groups. Some public meeting participants provided follow-up comments after the meetings by mail or electronically, and a few people unable to attend the public meetings provided written input. The Council's facilitator then summarized the input (see Appendix C , and the Council met in Fort Benton on October 24-25 to prioritize issues and discuss next steps. They also determined they wanted to seek as broad public involvement on their preliminary information as the schedule would allow, and they approved the preliminary outline for their report.

2 | P a g e

Although constrained by pending deadlines, the Council posted online its December 2 Scoping Summary and invited public input from December 2 through December 12, 2013. Appendix D includes the collated comments from this review, and they are referenced in subsequent sections of this report.

It should be noted that a written document cannot convey the true richness of the dialogue that has occurred so far between Council members, as well as between and with Council members and attendees at the public scoping meetings. What is presented here is a mere glimpse of the knowledge, experience, and understanding the Council will continue to build upon and apply to their ongoing deliberations.

PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the background information the Council has heard, the input provided, and the results of Council consideration of both. This information forms a foundation for the remainder of their deliberations as they assist DNRC with the State Water Plan Update in 2014.

FIGURE 3. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING, SMALL GROUP REPORT-OUT

3 | P a g e

Table 2. Upper Missouri River Basin Advisory Council Members Sector Name Location Experience/Representation Nominated by Email Address Conservation Director of MT Trout Unlimited MT TU and MT Water Project Mark@montana Conservation Aagenes, Mark Helena tu.org Watershed/ GGWC, Chair of Governor's Tourism Advisory Council, MT FWP Region 3 Advisory Greater Gallatin Watershed cyndy.andrus@g Andrus, Cyndy Bozeman Tourism Committee, Bozeman city commissioner, MT Heritage Commission Council mail.com Ag /CD/ Teton Co. CD chair, Bynum Irrigation Dist, Ag in MT Schools, Teton Coop. Reservoir Teton CD, MT Petroleum mvbaker@3river Baker, Vicki Bynum Petroleum Co., Teton Cty Planning Bd, Dir. of MT Association of Dam & Canal Systems (MADCS) Association s.net Career of understanding water, water rights, and water management, very highly City of Townsend, Broadwater CD, jbeck3026@mt. CD/ Municipal Beck, Jim Townsend recommended Missouri River CD Council, MACD net Executive Director of Sweetgrass Development, covering north central Montana Montana Economic Development executivedirecto Economic Great Converse, Sarah Association r@sweetgrassde development Falls+ velopment.org Strategic Development Manager at Golden Sunlight Mine, MS in Mining MT Mining Association [email protected] Industry/ Mining Dale, Kitt Sheridan Engineering, hydrology background, ranch owner/operator om Industry/ Attorney representing hydropower and water right holders for 25 years; served on PPL Montana hollyjo@franzdri Franz, Holly Helena Hydropower many advisory councils scoll.com Recreation/ Smith River Guide, Smith River Advisory Council, Past President of Fishing Outfitters FOAM [email protected] Geary, Michael Clancy Fishing Industry Association of Montana (FOAM) m Ag/MWRA Hardin, Bob Fairfield Sun River WS group, Greenfield Irrigation District Manager (83,000 acres) Sun River WS Group [email protected] Conservation/ Hydrologist working on international water and stream flow issues The Nature Conservancy [email protected] Kendy, Eloise Helena Instream flow Ag/Water Water Commissioner, Cataract Water Users/Dam Willow Creek Water Users h2omt@hotmail Kinne, Lezlie Harrison Commissioner .com Centennial Valley Assoc, Water Users, Vigilante Electric Cooperative Centennial Valley Association allenmartinell@ Ag/Watershed Martinell, Allan Dell gmail.com Tribal Old Person, Earl Browning Chief, Blackfeet Tribe Blackfeet Tribe [email protected] Gallatin Water Resources Task Force, Assoc of Gallatin Area Irrigators, Bozeman Association of Gallatin Ag salesranch@the Ag/CD Sales, Walt Manhattan Integrated Water Resources Mgmt Technical Committee Irrigators, Gallatin CD global.net Watershed/ Medical doctor, 25-year second home resident in the Big Hole, serves on Big Hole Big Hole WS Committee paulsiddoway@ Siddoway, Paul Melrose conservation Watershed Committee gmail.com Industry/ Executive Director of Montana Building Industries Association; past involvement on Montana Building Industries dstewart@mont Stewart, Dustin Helena building water issues in Legislature Association ana.com President MADCS, member MWRA, Pondera Dam & Canal Co (80,480 acres) MT Association of Dams & Canals, [email protected] Ag/MADCS Stokes, Vernon Valier & MT Water Resources Assoc et Economic/ Twin Natural resource planner, fly fishing guide, food, ag & economic development, Big Headwaters RC & D jwillauer@head Willauer, Joe Recreation Bridges Hole Watershed Committee, Beaverhead-Deer Lodge Forest working group watersrcd.org Bozeman Director of Public Works, PhD in Civil Eng., past pres of American Water Montana League of Cities and cwoolard@boze Municipal Water Woolard, Craig Bozeman Works Association, member of EPA national drinking water advisory board Towns man.net Cascade CD chair, MT Salinity Control, also Big Sandy & Lewis & Clark CDs MT Salinity Control Assoc gm.wortman@g Ag/CD Wortman, Gayla Cascade experience mail.com

4 | P a g e

Table 3. Council Resource Experts Agency/Entity Name Location e-mail U.S. Geological Survey Berkas, Wayne Helena [email protected] Gallatin Local Water Quality District Crone, Tammy Bozeman [email protected] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Duberstein, Leonard Billings [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Econopouly, Thomas Denver [email protected] Montana University System/State Climate Office Jencso, Kelsey Missoula [email protected] Blackfeet Tribal Council Lunak, Jerry Browning [email protected] DEQ-Water Quality Planning Bureau McCauley, Ann Helena [email protected] Montana Water Court McElyea, Russ Bozeman [email protected] Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks McLane, Michael Helena [email protected] Montana Wetland Council Saul, Lynda Helena [email protected] Northern Region, USDA Forest Service Sims, Bruce Missoula [email protected] Montana Association of Planners Thebarge, George Helena [email protected] USDA., Natural Resources Conservation Service Weidenheft, Denise Bozeman [email protected] Table 4. Associated DNRC Staff, Facilitator DNRC Basin Hydrologist Dolan, Larry Helena [email protected] DNRC Helena Regional Office Gartland, Bryan Helena [email protected] DNRC Lewistown Regional Office Irvin, Scott Lewistown [email protected] DNRC Basin Water Resource Planner Schwend, Ann Helena [email protected] DNRC Bozeman Regional Office Strasheim, Kerri Bozeman [email protected] Council Facilitator (contracted) Williams, Kathleen Bozeman [email protected]

FIGURE 4. UPPER MISSOURI BASIN ADVISORY COUNCIL FORT BENTON MEETING PARTICIPANTS Front Row, from left: Kathleen Williams, Michael Geary, Wayne Green (for Bruce Sims), Kitt Dale, Eloise Kendy, Holly Franz, Gayla Wortman; Second Row: Greg Kruzich, Ann McCauley, Sarah Converse, Lezlie Kinne, Vicki Baker, Jim Beck, Walt Sales, Lenny Duberstein, John Kilpatrick (for Wayne Berkas); Third Row: Denise Wiedenheft, Larry Dolan, Scott Irvin, Paul Siddoway, Craig Woolard, Allen Martinell, Joe Willauer, Vernon Stokes, John LaFave. Council members not pictured: Mark Aagenes, Cyndy Andrus, Bob Hardin, Earl Old Person, Dustin Stewart 5 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT THE UPPER MISSOURI BASIN This section is a compilation of information presented to the Council at their kickoff meeting, as well as at the public scoping meetings. The graphics were selected from the presentations posted here - http://www.dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_mgmt/state_water_plan/upper_missouri/default.asp. The scope of information selected for inclusion was that relevant to the subsequent discussions, and is by no means complete. Please see the presentations for information citations not provided below, or contact the presenter for more information. The DNRC will be providing a more complete Basin Profile in the next stages of planning.

For this project, DNRC has defined the "Upper" Missouri Basin as lands draining to the mainstem and tributaries of the Missouri River, upstream of and including the Marias River. The basin encompasses 21.3 million acres, approximately 33,300 square miles. The topography of the upper Basin is mountains and valleys, transitioning to plains in the lower basin.

Land Cover in the Upper Missouri Basin Other, 2.9% Cropland, 8.4% Forest, 22.0%

Grass and Shrub, 66.7%

Land Ownership in the Upper Missouri Basin

Tribal, State , 7.3% 6.7%

Federal, 34.7% Private, 51.2%

FIGURE 5. LAND COVER AND JURISDICTION IN THE BASIN

Land cover in the basin is mostly grass/shrub, but also forest, cropland (which includes hay, grain, and

irrigated crops, but not irrigated pasture), and "other" River Ruby (which includes cities, towns, water bodies, and barren ground) (See Figure 5.).

Land jurisdiction within the basin is about half private FIGURE 6. MAJOR STREAMS IN THE UPPER MISSOURI BASIN and one-third federal, with the remainder split between tribal (the Blackfeet reservation) and state.

6 | P a g e

WATER RESOURCES Major stream systems in the basin (Figure 6) include the headwaters streams (Gallatin, Madison, and Jefferson, which form the mainstem Missouri above Canyon Ferry reservoir), the middle basin (Smith and Dearborn systems), and the systems downstream of the mainstem reservoirs (the Sun, Teton, and Marias systems). Each of these systems also has major streams that combine to form them - for example, the Beaverhead, Big Hole, and Ruby form the Jefferson, and the Two Medicine, Birch, Cut Bank, and Badger systems form the Marias.

Stream types vary across the basin (see Figure 7). The Big Hole River in the headwaters has flows derived from mountain snowmelt; not much storage (i.e., the river is relatively free-flowing); water flows from high mountains (elevations up to 10,000 feet); and the valleys are also relatively high- FIGURE 7. TWO CONTRASTING RIVERS - THE BIG elevation. Almost all irrigation in the Big Hole is flood irrigation, most from HOLE (TOP) AND SUN private ditches. The system also provides important fishery habitat for trout and fluvial (river-dwelling) arctic grayling.

The Sun River provides contrast and is more characteristic of a prairie stream. Its water supply is from the mountains, but prairie snowmelt also can play a major role in its flow regime. The Sun has well-developed infrastructure to deliver water, including Gibson Reservoir, which stores 96,000 acre feet and helps serve the 88,000 acres of the Greenfields Irrigation District. The Sun system supports a wide variety of crops, including barley. The Sun River also contains trout, but transitions to a warm-water fishery in its lower reaches.

PRECIPITATION In general, the basin's water supply starts out as precipitation, which drives streamflow and is a function of elevation.

Mountain areas in the basin receive between 20 and 40 inches of precipitation annually (Figure 8), up to 50 inches or more in some locations. Typical precipitation levels in mountain valley areas are ten to 15 inches. Because most crops require more water than this, the valleys are considered water deficit areas, where irrigation is required to grow good crops.

The Great Plains are also relatively dry, averaging ten to 15 inches of annual rainfall, also a water deficit situation for plants. As a result, the waters of the Sun, Teton, and Marias Rivers see high demand for irrigation water. FIGURE 8. BASIN AVERAGE ANNU AL PRECIPITATION

7 | P a g e

Normal 1st of Month Snow Water Equivalents for Carrot Basin SNOTEL Site Madison Range; Elevation of 9,000 feet Average Annual Precipitation = 43 inches

SNOW Carrot Basin SNOTEL Site The type of precipitation is also important, Normal Snow Water Equivalents (1981-2010 data) and snow plays a critical role in water supply 35 and timing. 30 The Natural Resources Conservation Service 25 (NRCS) maintains a system of snow pack 20 monitoring sites in Montana, many located in 15 the upper Missouri basin. These are used, Inches 10 with other data, to produce runoff projections for the spring and summer. 5 0 NRCS measures snow at these sites through 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep the snow accumulation period. Figure 9 shows what might be typical for our highest FIGURE 9. AN EXAMPLE OF SNOW MONITORING DATA elevations, above 9,000 feet, in southwestern Montana. Here, the average annual precipitation is 43 inches, which creates an average annual 28 inches of snow water equivalent.

At these high-elevation sites, snowpack accumulation generally peaks about the end of April or first of May (left arrow). The snowpack begins to melt in May, with the majority of meltout occurring in June (right arrow), contributing to streamflow increases downstream. For lower elevation stations, more of the melt occurs during May.

STREAMFLOW The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a streamflow monitoring network in Montana. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the DNRC, and others also gage streams.

In the headwaters, streamflows peak with snowmelt — typically in early June, but varying by year. Lower in the basin, the peak time is even more variable, and prairie runoff can be an important determinant of peak flow timing.

Figure 10 depicts a headwaters stream, the Gallatin River, at two gage locations - above valley irrigation diversions (the Gateway site) and below valley irrigation withdrawals (the FIGURE 10. EXAMPLE HYDROGRAPHS FOR A BASIN STREAM

8 | P a g e

Logan site) where flow leaves the basin and joins the Missouri River. Each figure shows flow patterns for the wettest year in 10 and the driest in 10. The dark line represents what might be a typical year for these locations.

As shown, base flow conditions are occurring in late summer, and fall through winter. These flows are provided by groundwater and occur year-round but are masked by runoff in spring and early summer. Base flows are very consistent through the year, and also between wet and dry years.

For the Gallatin, most peak flows are between 2,000 and 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the upper gage, and 1,500 and 6,000 cfs at the lower one. After meltout and spring rains, the river reaches base flow, which persists into late summer and beyond. There is no major water storage on this system, so the hydrograph represents a fairly unregulated river.

In comparing the two gages, outflow is less than inflow due to irrigation diversions and depletions. Depletions are highest during the irrigation demand peak in late July and August. Following the irrigation season (as outlined in red), flows recover and are quite a bit higher than inflows, due to return flows from irrigation. After that, withdrawals decline to base flow levels again.

RESERVOIRS A variety of reservoirs have been constructed in the basin (Figure 11), with Canyon Ferry being the largest in the system. Reservoir operations have a substantial effect on water supply in the basin.

Reservoirs affect flows by holding high flows, then releasing water in the late season when inflows are low and irrigation demands high. Even major reservoirs can be substantially drawn down as evidenced at Gibson reservoir (Figure 12).

FIGURE 11. MAJOR RESERVOIRS IN THE BASIN

FIGURE 12. GIBSON RESERVOIR

Reservoirs can be either single-purpose or multi- purpose. Gibson is an example of a single-purpose (irrigation) reservoir that also provides ancillary benefits such as boating.

9 | P a g e

In contrast, Canyon Ferry reservoir (Figure 13) is owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for multiple uses - hydropower, irrigation, fishing, boating, municipal water, and downstream flows.

Canyon Ferry was constructed in the mid-1950s and first filled in 1956. The reservoir is typically operated in the "joint use zone" (Figure 14), a zone representing a 27-foot-high zone of water levels, the top of which is considered "full pool". In most years the reservoir fills, but not always. Total storage at full pool is FIGURE 13. CANYON FERRY DAM AND RESERVOIR about 2 million acre feet. With about 1.5 million acre feet in the reservoir, the surface level is fourteen feet below full pool, or about the middle of the Joint Use Zone. Not all that is released in most years, however. In general, if Canyon Ferry fills, about 800,000 acre-feet of water is being stored and later released during a typical year.

Average annual flow of the Missouri River at Canyon Ferry is about 3.9 million acre feet, meaning the reservoir can store half of the river's average annual flow. In contrast, Tiber Reservoir, with a capacity of about 1.5 million acre feet, doesn’t store as much water as Canyon Ferry, FIGURE 14. CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR STORAGE TRENDS AND JOINT USE ZONE but it is much larger relative to the annual volume produced by the source (the Marias River produces about 650,000 acre-feet annually). Its storage represents about 2.5 times the average annual flow of the Marias River, so reservoir operations there are capable of entirely reregulating the flow of the stream, at least during drier years.

The Missouri river hydrograph (Figure 15) shows the effect of Canyon Ferry operations on Missouri River flows. The overall effects are to reduce peak flows and increase the flow base during the mid-summer through winter periods. These FIGURE 15. EFFECT OF CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR ON MISSOURI RIVER FLOWS 10 | P a g e

effects are realized all the way down to Fort Peck Reservoir.

SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER INTERACTION As noted above, base flow is that portion of the stream flow that is supported by relatively consistent, groundwater inflows. Base flow really is occurring all of the time but it is most apparent during the fall, winter, and early spring after snowmelt runoff has stopped and surface water inflows are minimal. Situations where groundwater feeds surface water are considered to be "gaining" streams (see Figure 16).

FIGURE 16. DIAGRAMS OF GAINING AND LOSING STREAMS In other ("losing") streams, more common in lower elevation areas, water can move from the stream into the groundwater system. There can also be alternating gaining and losing sections of the same stream.

These interactions can be important in intermountain basins in southwestern Montana, where streams flow through alluvial aquifers and the water table typically is close to the surface.

Figure 17 shows the Upper Beaverhead River basin. Here, water table elevation contours generally parallel the streams, indicating that the groundwater flow direction is down-valley. Wells (red dots) are pumping water and removing it from the aquifer, while leakage from the canal (blue line) and surface irrigation can recharge the aquifer in some locations.

The deformities in the contours near the irrigation wells (circled in red) and canal demonstrate the complexity of FIGURE 17. SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UPPER BEAVERHEAD Source: http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf-open-files/MBMG384-upperbeaverheadbasin.pdf joint management of surface and groundwater.

11 | P a g e

WATER USE BY SECTOR This section summarizes various presentations made to the Council for five different water use sectors - agriculture, municipal, fish and wildlife, industrial, and recreation and tourism. As with the previous section, graphics were excerpted from the presentations made to the Council, which are posted online at http://www.dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_mgmt/state_water_plan/upper_missouri/default.asp. See presentations for sources and presenters.

One indication of the types of different water uses in the basin are water rights. Over 119,000 individual water rights (claims and permits) exist in the Upper Missouri basin. There are approximately 72,000 agricultural water rights in the Upper Missouri, many for irrigation, and about 45,000 for stock water.

AGRICULTURE As shown in Figure 18 (left), almost 98 percent of water diverted in Montana is for agriculture, estimated to total almost twelve million acre feet annually. About 11.5 million acre feet of that, or 98 percent, is diverted from surface water, and the small remainder from groundwater.

Water Diverted for Irrigation by Source Acres Irrigated in Montana by River Basin (11,700,000 acre-feet in total) (2,170,000 acres total)

Groundwater Columbia 200,000 Basin acre-feet, 2% 400,000 acres, 18%

Missouri Basin Yellowstone Surface Water 1,240,000 Basin 11,500,000 acres, acre-feet, 98% 530,000 58% acres, 24%

FIGURE 18. STATEWIDE IRRIGATION STATISTICS There are an estimated two million acres of irrigated land in Montana, with 1.2 million in the Missouri basin above Fort Peck reservoir, or about half of the total farmed area in the basin. Irrigated lands in the Upper Missouri (including and above the Marias) approximate one million acres, or 58 percent of the total upper basin agricultural land (Figure 18, right).

Figures from 2003 indicate more than half the diverted water in the state was then used for hay production (Figure 19). The next highest uses were pasture, then barley, then sugarbeets. Please note these are statewide figures; there is no known sugarbeet irrigation in the Upper Missouri Basin. Crop types affect the timing of water demands and potential shortage. For grain, irrigation demand may be high in the early- to mid- FIGURE 19. 2003 STATEWIDE IRRIGATION DIVERSIONS, BY CROP

12 | P a g e

summer period and much lower during the later summer, when streamflow typically is lowest. Forage crops, such as alfalfa and grass, need irrigation water throughout the season, although irrigation to these crops is shut off periodically for haying during the growing season.

FIGURE 20. COMPARISON OF FLOOD (LEFT, CONCEPTUAL) AND SPRINKLER IRRIGATION

Historically most of the irrigation rights in Montana were used for flood irrigation. Now, over half the acres continue to be flood irrigated, but others have been converted to sprinklers (Figure 20), notably center pivot systems. Sprinklers decrease labor requirements and allow for more even distribution of water across a field. Sprinkler irrigation can result in diverting less water, but can consume more overall, as crops are healthier and production higher. Flood irrigation typically diverts more, but much returns to streams as return flow. Whether the field is irrigated by flood or sprinkler, most water is still supplied to fields through open ditches.

Recent warmer springs have resulted in water being turned on early, when river flows may not have yet risen enough to satisfy the need.

Figure 21 is a diagram of the water cycle for agricultural use. Beginning at the middle left, water is diverted from the stream and applied to crops. The crops consume a certain portion of the amount applied (through evapo-transpiration). Of the remainder, some is evaporated from ditches or standing water (i.e., also lost to the system), and some returns to surface flow and to the groundwater aquifer (which may also return FIGURE 21. WATER CYCLE DIAGRAM FOR IRRIGATION WATER USE to surface flow, but later).

13 | P a g e

MUNICIPAL This water use category includes domestic water use, whether supplied by an individual on-site well, a major municipality's water supply system, a community system in a subdivision, or a system of an intermediate scale. There are approximately 500 municipal water rights recorded in the basin, and about 33,000 individual domestic well permits (purposes include domestic, lawn and garden, and fire protection).

An important distinction for this topic is the difference between a "municipality" and "municipal use". A municipality is a jurisdictional status - an incorporated city or town organized and incorporated under Title 7, Chapter 2, of state law. Municipal water use is considered a type of water use that, along with municipalities, includes subdivisions and water and sewer districts, including water appropriated by and provided for those in and around a municipality or an unincorporated town.

Municipal suppliers have diverse demands they must fulfill, which makes planning challenging. Water quality comes into play as well. Many municipalities rely on higher-elevation storage, which can bring unique challenges (ice damage, forest fire effects, etc.).

Municipal water demand figures vary widely, as shown in Table 5. In general, in-home water use is not highly consumptive, but lawn and garden uses are.

Table 5. Examples of Varied Water Use Rates Location Amount Source Virginia City 452 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (with peak of Water Resources Engineering (for 668 gpcd in summer months) Cooke City Study) Four Corners Residential Demand - 160 gallons per day (gpd) per Utility Solutions (Gallatin Valley) living unit (actual) Commercial Demand - 16 gpd per employee DEQ Irrigation Demand - 1.56 acre feet/Acre Utility Solutions Bozeman (City) Average Demand: 173 gpcd DNRC/City

Fourteen municipalities in the Upper Missouri basin have water reservations for future use. Municipalities are being creative in other ways in planning for future water needs, including buying shares from state-owned reservoirs, leasing Bureau of Reclamation contract water, requiring existing water rights be transferred to the city when a city annexes land (both surface water and groundwater rights), and purchasing nearby rights to change to municipal use.

DNRC continues to develop its rainwater harvesting policies. Generally, if the capture is within the place of use of an existing right, there is not a concern. DNRC is asking that anyone proposing rainwater harvest of more than 0.1 acre feet contact DNRC before moving forward.

Another evolving policy area is wastewater reuse. In one case, where a municipality had to switch from stream discharge of effluent to land application, the land application was part of required water treatment, and no permit or change authorization was needed. If the reuse is a new beneficial use of water (i.e., not required), a water right permit or change may be needed.

14 | P a g e

The City of Bozeman recently completed an integrated water resource management plan that could provide a model for water supply planning elsewhere. They used 30- and 50-year planning horizons; projected demand with both moderate and high growth rates; considered firm water supply yields, water rights, and seasonality; reviewed available water supply in context with the future water balance gap; modeled conditions with and without climate change; and scored and ranked supply options. The process resulted in identified water supply alternatives to further FIGURE 22. CITY OF BOZEMAN WATER DEMAND, BY USE TYPE investigate to meet future water supply needs. Bozeman's characterization of water demand by use class is shown in Figure 22. "Unaccounted for" water is likely largely system leakage.

FISH AND WILDLIFE Information in this section was provided by staff of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. See presentations for more information.

Fish and wildlife-related uses are high in the Upper Missouri Basin. Almost half of all the fishing in the state occurs here, or about 1.3 million angler days per year. Non-resident use accounts for 38 percent. Statewide, about half a million people per year participate in hunting and wildlife watching, accounting for about four million user days.

There are about 8,700 fish and wildlife-related water rights on record in the basin. Most are private (e.g., fish ponds), others are public (e.g., instream flow rights administered by FWP).

Streams, lakes, wetlands, and associated riparian Table 6. Proportion of Wildlife Species in Montana habitats are critical to most of Montana's wildlife and to Dependent on Riparian and Wetland Habitats all fish. Table 6shows various species' reliance on 100% Fish and amphibians riparian and wetland habitats, which make up less than 25% Mammals five percent of Montana's landscape. 41% Birds 44% Reptiles A stream's purpose is to help "carry the mountains to 87% Imperiled species (ESA-listed or candidate) the ocean" - i.e., transport the watershed's sediments and water. Two factors primarily influence a stream's ability to transport the water and sediment from the watershed - land management and water supply. Focusing on water, the amount of water has to be appropriate

FIGURE 23. SCHEMATIC OF A STREAM CROSS-SECTION

15 | P a g e

for the channel characteristics (width, depth, sinuosity, etc.) to transport sediment. The timing and magnitude of water supply is also important to maintaining channel form and function (Figure 23). Stream flow and function processes are extremely dynamic, depending on timing and amount of water and land management. Dynamic physical processes are good. They create complex habitat, and complex habitat supports healthy populations of plants and animals. Figure 24 shows the contrast between complex habitat and much less complex habitat.

FIGURE 24. TWO EXAMPLES OF STREAM HABITAT COMPLEXITY - HIGH (LEFT) AND LOW

In Montana, the focus of fish and wildlife management is on maintaining and improving habitat. It is important not to just cover fish up with water, or provide only enough for wildlife to drink. The influence of water on habitat formation and maintenance is critical to fish and wildlife resources, and the full hydrograph is important.

Figure 25 shows a dynamic hydrograph for the Big Hole River. Grayling spawning is cued by the early lowland meltout (before peak flows).

Here and in other streams, adequate flow is needed in the winter to avoid destroying eggs overwintering in gravels. Cottonwood regeneration needs overbank flows. Flood flows in 2011 cued pallid sturgeon spawning movement in the lower basin that had not been documented in 80 years. Tiber releases were not available that year to try to attract shovelnose sturgeon spawning into the Upper Basin. Regulated systems (i.e., those with reservoirs) often do not have the natural flood flows FIGURE 25. EXAMPLE OF DYNAMIC HYDROGRAPH, BIG HOLE RIVER that create these high-flow benefits.

16 | P a g e

INDUSTRIAL Industrial water uses in the basin include mining, energy (petroleum) production and refining, hydropower generation, non-agricultural food production, and paper product manufacturing.

Water rights are required for all beneficial uses of water, including industrial uses, except where those uses are indirect or collateral to the primary water use (e.g., mine pit dewatering, etc.). Industry (and other sectors) can now FIGURE 26. A MALTING PLANT NEAR GREAT FALLS temporarily lease water from other users and convert it to another use.

There are several active mines in the basin, including the Golden Sunlight gold mine and talc mines in the Dillon and Cameron areas. The malting plant near Great Falls (photo) is a relatively new industrial use in the basin. To develop, they leased water and used a portion of the City of Great Falls' water reservation.

This basin is not seeing the scale of oil development occurring Basin in eastern Montana; projections for such development have Hydro not yet been provided to the Council. Projects As shown in Figure 27 and in Table 7, hydropower is a major industry in the basin. There are twelve major hydropower projects in the basin, including nine generation facilities on the

Table 7. Major Hydroelectric Projects in Upper Missouri Basin Capacity Dam Stream Owner or Operator1 (MW) Madison Madison 9 PPL Montana Toston Missouri 10 Montana DNRC Canyon U.S. Bureau of Missouri 50 Ferry Reclamation Hauser Missouri 19 PPL Montana Holter Missouri 48 PPL Montana Black Eagle Missouri 21 PPL Montana Rainbow Missouri 62 PPL Montana Cochrane Missouri 64 PPL Montana Ryan Missouri 60 PPL Montana Morony Missouri 48 PPL Montana Tiber Marias 7.5 Tiber-Montana LLC Sun River Turnbull 13 Turnbull Hydro Slope Canal FIGURE 27. MAJOR HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES IN THE UPPER MISSOURI Total 411.5 BASIN

1 PPL is in the process of transferring hydro facilities to Northwestern Energy.

17 | P a g e

Missouri mainstem.

A 15 MW addition is planned at Gibson dam on the Sun River system, and a 4.7 MW addition is planned at Clark Canyon dam at the head of the Beaverhead.

Hydropower water rights are based on turbine capacity. The largest hydropower right in the basin is for Cochrane Dam. As shown in Figure 28, there is only a short time of year where the full hydropower water rights are fulfilled, and the level may never be reached in low flow years. Holter is even more constrained, where a median year does not fulfill the right. FIGURE 28. MISSOURI MAINSTEM FLOW AND COCHRANE HYDROELECTRIC WATER CLAIM LEVEL

Most of the PPL facilities are run-of-the-river, meaning they aren't of the design and capacity to retain much flow. Development of new water rights above these PPL facilities was effectively eliminated until 1953 when the Bureau of Reclamation constructed Canyon Ferry Dam. Montana Power (now PPL) and Reclamation entered an agreement that provided for PPL’s water rights to be met from regulated releases from Canyon Ferry storage. This allowed for additional water development in the Missouri Basin including the construction of Clark Canyon Dam and the development of the East Bench Irrigation district. According to Reclamation staff, additional water remains in Canyon Ferry Reservoir that could be marketed for a multitude of purposes, provided that Federal and State environmental laws are followed. According to DNRC and FWP staff, PPL and others have recently been agreeing that if water developments upstream of the hydro rights obtain contract water from Canyon Ferry, they will not object to the development. Some assert the potential for contract water to address the limits on new development created by hydro rights and basin closures is complicated by a long history of unresolved management conditions and legal issues.

RECREATION AND TOURISM Information in this section was provided by staff of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. See presentations for more information.

Recreation and tourism are also major uses of water in the Upper Missouri Basin. Of the 54 state parks in Montana, fourteen are located in the basin, six being water-based parks (see Figure 29). Other major water-related recreational attractions include the Missouri FIGURE 29. WATER-BASED STATE PARKS IN THE UPPER MISSOURI BASIN mainstem reservoirs, the area's

18 | P a g e

2011 Visitation by Corridor 2011 Visitation, River vs. many trout streams, reservoirs in Great Falls Reservoir the headwaters systems (Hebgen, Region Ennis, Clark Canyon), and national 37% 31% forest land. Hauser-Holter 44% Reservoir Region 32% 56% River In 2011, the Missouri/Madison Hebgen- corridor supported close to Madison Region 550,000 summer recreation group visits. The visits were fairly evenly FIGURE 30. MISSOURI/MADISON CORRIDOR RECREATIONAL USE STATISTICS divided across three regions, with somewhat more activity occurring on rivers in comparison to reservoirs (Figure 30).

According to information presented to the Council by FWP staff, fishing remains the most popular recreational activity in the country – surpassing running, camping, hiking and biking. More than 46 million Americans went fishing in 2011, a slight increase from 2010. In 2011, females and youth added the most new participants. Although 2011 national participation in boating was down slightly from 2010, the average number of outings per boater increased.

Among Montanans, fishing is the third most popular activity after walking and backpacking/hiking. Fishing is also a most desired activity among Montanans, meaning people wished they could do it more. Montana residents make frequent use of rivers, streams, natural lakes and reservoirs.

Ten million visitors a year come to Montana to hike, fish, ski, bike, hunt, kayak, boat, and explore. When travelling in Montana, visitors indicated (Figure 31) that FIGURE 31. MONTANA WATER-RELATED RECREATION STATISTICS clean waterways and clean air are

19 | P a g e

among the most important attributes to their experience, as well as wildlife viewing opportunities, scenic vistas, open space, opportunities to view the night sky, and access to public lands and waterways.

WATER ADMINISTRATION Montana's 1972 Constitution declared "all waters of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people". A water right is thus not ownership of the water, but a right to use the water beneficially. A legal water right is a property right, protected by the Constitution. It can be severed from the land and bought and sold, and cannot be taken away without due process.

Montana follows the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, two major aspects of which are "first in time is first in right" (older rights get available water before newer ones do) and "use it or lose it" (where extended periods of non-use of a water right when water was available could result in a loss of the water right).

Montana's Water Use Act, passed soon after the new Constitution, provided for a statewide adjudication of water rights for water appropriated prior to July 1, 1973 (the date of the Act). It also set up a system for new appropriations of water and for making changes to existing water rights. Via the Act, DNRC became the record- keeper of water rights, and the Act also allowed for a water reservation process allowing certain entities to reserve water for instream or future diversionary uses. The policy section sets out the vision of the Act:

“It is the policy of this state and a purpose of this chapter to encourage the wise use of the state’s water resources by making them available for appropriation consistent with this chapter and to provide for the wise utilization, development, and conservation of the waters of this state for the maximum benefit of its people with the least possible degradation of the natural aquatic ecosystems...”

STATEWIDE WATER ADJUDICATION OF "EXISTING" (PRE-1973) RIGHTS In a nutshell, the statewide adjudication process is under the jurisdiction of the state Water Court, established in 1979 and located in Bozeman. The Court has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-1973 water rights. The adjudication process helps to establish Montana's water use against claims by downstream states. The process establishes the hierarchy of priority rights by water source, in addition to other details.

DNRC staff examine water right claims in accordance with Montana Supreme Court rules for doing so. Staff may place "issue remarks" on a claim during their review, which can often be the basis of objections to claims. Objections are filed with the Court and a water master works with claimants and objectors to resolve issues, producing a report for the water judge. The water judge then adopts, modifies, or rejects the water master's report. The Court must resolve all the issue remarks and issue a decree for each of Montana's 85 river basins. Claims have been examined and preliminary decrees issued in almost all basins in the Upper Missouri watershed.

The DNRC State Water Plan Update is NOT the statewide water adjudication but is operating alongside and in consideration of the adjudication process.

POST-1973 PERMITS AND CHANGES DNRC has jurisdiction over "new" water uses (or post-1973), including any new surface water use or groundwater use exceeding ten acre feet per year. They also issue water use "certificates" (no permit needed) for groundwater developments less than ten acre feet per year. DNRC also has jurisdiction over changes to existing water rights or permits, including changes in point of diversion, place of use, purpose of use, and place of storage. A water right

20 | P a g e

holder may not change his or her right in any way that exceeds the historic beneficial use amount of the right, nor may a change adversely affect other water rights. An important consideration in water administration is that existing legal water users have a right to source water conditions that existed when that user came onto the source.

FEDERAL RESERVED WATER RIGHTS There are other types of water rights in Montana that arise from federal or other lands that have been "reserved" from the public domain (e.g., Indian reservations, national forests, Wild and Scenic River corridors, etc.). While some states rely on litigation to address the quantification of these rights, Montana negotiates them through the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. This commission has the authority to negotiate settlements with federal agencies and Indian tribes claiming reserved water rights within the state of Montana. Compacts are ratified by the Montana Legislature, Tribal Councils (for tribal rights), and often the U.S. Congress.

WATER RESERVATIONS Not to be confused with federal reserved water rights (discussed above), water reservations allow for the preservation of water for future use by certain government entities, including municipalities, conservation districts, FWP, DEQ, BLM, DNRC, the BOR and select irrigation projects.

CLOSURES AND OTHER DESIGNATIONS Overlain on the general water law are a series of special designations including basin closures to certain new water appropriations and controlled groundwater areas, as shown in Figure 32. Basin closures are typically closures to most new surface water appropriations (and hydraulically connected groundwater) arising from concerns about over-appropriation. Some areas have been closed by the Legislature, others by administrative rule, and other closures have occurred as a result of compact negotiations. The Upper Missouri Basin Closure's prohibition on new permits lasts until final decrees are issued in the basin. The Jefferson/Madison and Teton FIGURE 32. VARIOUS CLOSURES IN THE UPPER MISSOURI BASIN basin closures do not reference final decrees.

Controlled groundwater areas can be designated to prevent new appropriations or to limit certain types of appropriations due to water availability, or water quality problems, for the protection of existing water rights.

21 | P a g e

Municipal use, non-consumptive use, and capture of high spring flows are exceptions from the basin closure in the Upper Missouri, as are stock and domestic uses and some special cases. New uses in closed basins can be accommodated if they are included in the exceptions and "mitigate" for their effect on the source. A mitigation plan often involves flows left instream to mitigate net depletions on that stream. An aquifer recharge plan can involve some type of aquifer recharge basin, where an older surface water right is discharged to the aquifer using buried perforated pipes.

ENFORCEMENT Water rights can be enforced between individuals by the holder of the senior water right "making call" on one or more junior rights, which is a request for the junior(s) to curtail their use until the senior right is fulfilled or the call retracted.

If a basin has an historic or Water Court decree, water users can petition the District Court for appointment of a water commissioner. The petition can be from 15% of the water users or can be done under District Court discretion. A water commissioner has the authority to enter upon certain ditches, canals, or other sources and to visit, inspect, and adjust certain headgates. He or she monitors diversions to ensure compliance, keeps records, and reports to the District Court. Water users may also petition the District Court for a water mediator. For violations related to pre-1973 water rights, the District Court can be petitioned to certify the matter to the Water Court.

For issues related to post-1973 rights, people can contact their local DNRC office. DNRC's jurisdiction over those rights include issues related to wasting water, using water unlawfully, preventing water from going to a senior water user, or otherwise violating the Montana Water Use Act.

TOOLS TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGE For water to be available for future uses, it must be both physically available and legally available and its use not prohibited by a basin or other closure. Cumulatively, irrigation withdrawals, hydropower rights, and instream flow water rights and reservations result in an over-allocation of the basin water supply. "Excess" water is available in the mainstem Missouri, for example, for only two months on average (i.e., when basin flows exceed PPL's water rights at Cochrane Dam). The basin closures limit new appropriations as well. The Marias basin is not closed, but legal water availability is scarce. Given these conditions, there are several ways (Table 8) to accommodate change in the basin, which really is dependent upon reallocating the existing supply.

Table 8. A Selection of Tools to Accommodate Changing Water Demands DNRC Water This is the most common tool in developing water in the upper Missouri. An authorization is Right Change required from DNRC to change a point of diversion, a place of use, the purpose of a water Process right, or to add storage. The process is a "drop-for-drop" process. Water Marketing This is the buying and selling of water rights Water Sharing/ An example is the Big Hole River, which has a cooperative drought plan in place where Pooling shortages are shared in low flow periods Water Various entities filed for water to develop/use in the future. Some feel these reservations Reservations have not been fully utilized. Water Right In some cases, formal administration of water rights results in additional flow in certain Enforcement locations. For example, formal allocation of water in the Musselshell has resulted in more water flowing to downstream users more often.

22 | P a g e

Table 8. A Selection of Tools to Accommodate Changing Water Demands Federal Contract Water contracts can be purchased for use or mitigation, including water from Canyon Ferry Water reservoir and Lake Elwell (Tiber Dam). According to the Bureau of Reclamation, while about 200,000 acre feet of stored water could potentially be marketed from each of these reservoirs, only about half this amount would likely be available when the effects on other water users and resources are considered. Some question whether even these amounts are available. Water Leasing Current water rights can be leased for other uses in other locations or for instream flow. Efficiency Increasing diversion, transport, or use efficiency can create additional water to be used Upgrades elsewhere. Eminent Domain Although seldom used, some entities have the authority to condemn water rights with just compensation.

One of the Council's resource experts suggested looking to Colorado's water planning for additional tools to accommodate change. Their tools included a "massive list of non-agricultural initiatives – at various stages of implementation – for everything from snow banking, floodwater diversion storage and water recycling in hydraulic fracturing to enhancing wildlife habitat, requiring more drought mitigation in land use plans and encouraging interagency collaboration."2

Another cited the Groundwater Investigation program (GWIP) which is available to study specific questions such as whether managed aquifer storage is feasible in Montana. Such a project is being undertaken in Four Corners where mitigation water is returned to surface water via infiltration. Others cited increased storage - either structural or natural - as a way to accommodate changing water demands.

FIGURE 33. THE COUNCIL AT WORK - LARGE GROUP AND SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS

2 Source: http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/colorados-new-drought-plan-is-a-model-for-the-region.

23 | P a g e

BUILDING THE BASELINE This section summarizes the planning baseline input provided during the Phase I (Issues Scoping) deliberations of the Upper Missouri River Basin Advisory Council. It includes information and input from the Council's Kickoff meeting held in Three Forks, Montana, on September 5-6, 2013. That meeting included presentations from five resource experts, representing the water use sectors of agriculture, fish/wildlife, industry, municipal/domestic, and recreation/tourism. Each presenter was asked to include information for their sector for each of the following topics: what's working well, water oversupplies, water shortages, trends and projections, and data gaps.

During these deliberations and after, Council members and Resource Experts were asked to continue to provide information in these five categories. In addition, attendees at the five regional public meetings, held September 30 through October 9, 2013, in Great Falls, Conrad, Helena, Bozeman, and Dillon also provided input to these categories via Individual Input Forms distributed at the meetings and posted online.

The text below is a compilation of all these sources of information.

WHAT'S WORKING WELL In planning, as we assess what needs to be changed, we should also bear in mind what is working well that should be continued. Below are topics presented to or raised by the Council, or provided as public input. At the Council's work session in late October, they discussed the topics below, including whether they agree these really were items that were "working well". They did not eliminate any of the concepts, but edited a few. There was not complete FIGURE 34. COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS IN THE BIG HOLE consensus across all Council members on any, but some came close. Some might garner full consensus if rephrased, and some generated fairly broad disagreement or strong disagreement from one or two members.

These topics are ordered in Table 9 from what gained the most widespread agreement from the Council, to those items least agreeable. The scores were based on a mathematical weighting of the Council's results. Each asterisk represents one (of four) work groups at the Council's work session achieving consensus as to that element working well.

Council Cumulative Table 9. "What's Working Well" Input, Prioritized Scores, Group Consensus State water law if adjudicated and enforced, including no prioritization of uses, and the prior appropriation doctrine (first in time is first in right). 62 *** Recognition in Montana of the need to conjunctively manage surface and groundwater. 61 *** High-quality water resources attract recreation and tourism. 61 *** Partnerships where water users work together to maintain fish and wildlife flows (e.g., Jefferson, Big Hole). Mutual trust and understanding are necessary for success, and anglers share the pain 61 ** during low-flow periods through fishing restrictions. Basin closures to new appropriations spur water management innovation and make Montana a national leader in wisely managing a limited resource. 57 * Water commissioner enforcement of water rights. They can be helpful also (with the District 50

24 | P a g e

Court) where groups have or want flexible water management plans and partnerships (e.g., Gallatin). Water reservations and federal contract water have supplied new uses and/or mitigation water in certain areas (e.g., Great Falls malting plant, Big Sky ski area). 47 * Water conservation/sharing, where it exists, to deal with shortages (e.g., odd-even lawn watering days, late summer-winter instream flow agreements (Big Hole/Jefferson), etc.). 42 * Ability to sever and sell water rights from their place of use (assuming no adverse effect to other 38 water rights). Current water storage facilities in the basin are working well and capture water during high flows for use in periods of shortage. 35 ** Public involvement in planning Montana's water future. 30 Municipal water planning involving optimizing and maintaining existing water rights, acquiring rights, water-related annexation requirements, addressing system losses, evaluating reuse 29 * options, drought planning, prioritizing conservation, and holding water reservations. Dryland and other agricultural practices that match crops with available water. 26 Recharge, retention and return flows where occurring are working well to enhance late-season flows and groundwater levels. An example is early water use in the Upper Big Hole, the return 20 flows from which sustain the rest of the River system. Exempt wells (wells exempt from permitting) work well in rural settings where there are few 6 nearby water users that could be affected. Certain irrigation practices tailored to crop management and hydrologic needs. For example, flood irrigation in some areas can increase aquifer levels and late-season return flows, whereas 1 sprinkler irrigation of the same acreage diverts less, but may consume more water overall.

Respondents to the December public input period, though a small sample, rated "partnerships", followed by "high quality water resources" as aspects most positive in the basin. "Basin closures", "water conservation/sharing", and "storage/retention" tied for third place in their ratings. They also provided general comments on the Topic, collated in Appendix D, Table D-1.

WATER OVERSUPPLIES The Council scoping process sought information about water shortages (below), so also tried to determine if there were any damaging oversupplies. From the input, it appears there can be "available" water during some high flow periods (which some consider an oversupply), some localized flooding during runoff, but nothing broadly or frequently damaging.

High flows are not much of an issue for fish and wildlife (although wildlife nests may be flooded), and benefits of high flows (e.g., spawning triggers, cottonwood regeneration) may outweigh harm. There may be physical damage to riparian areas from high flow events, but less so if the areas are in good condition. Recent (2011) high flows in the lower portion of the Upper Missouri triggered important pallid sturgeon movements that likely hadn't occurred in many years. Seasonal high flows can create localized recreational access and safety issues.

Several people noted the opportunity to capture high spring flows; others cited the importance of those flows for ecological purposes, and the ability of healthy watersheds to absorb and cleanse them.

WATER SHORTAGES There are agricultural water shortages in dry years, especially where no major storage projects exist, including late season shortages in small watersheds. There can also be early spring seasonal shortages when warmer temperatures at lower elevations result in irrigation demands and associated diversions but colder temperatures

25 | P a g e

persist at higher elevations and delay mountain snowmelt and runoff. Storage projects can be subject to shortage as well. One person stated that most tributaries in the plains have shortages from mid-summer to fall where only first or second right holders have water. Sun River irrigators cite a shortage of irrigation water in the fall. Shortages were also cited in the Lower Teton drainage.

For fish and wildlife, several participants noted that shortage is the rule. Dry streams and fish kills are the dramatic reminders that fish need water, but lack of flows sufficient for spawning cues, support of food sources, keeping water temperatures in check, cleansing gravels, maintaining other habitat elements, and preventing ice damage can be considered shortages. Shortages are worse where habitat is compromised. Lack of overbank flows (and associated point bar and sand bar formation) is a shortage related to cottonwood regeneration, which can be especially applicable to rivers regulated by upstream reservoirs. Systems that don't have a flood every ten years and bankfull flows every 1.8 years will have trouble maintaining healthy riparian areas. One person felt that tributary streams without user group partnerships or that are decreed are especially susceptible to flow problems for fish.

Except during peak runoff, Missouri river flows typically are less than the hydro rights at Hauser, Holter, and the Great Falls dams. In low-flow years, flows may not exceed some of these claimed flow rates at all.

For municipal supplies dependent on surface water, shortages can occur due to drought, winter freezing, lack of or insufficient storage, or quality impairments due to forest fire or otherwise. Systems dependent on groundwater can experience shortages due to drought or adjacent use lowering the groundwater table.

Some felt water is over-allocated in the basin, though one commenter suggested that's not the case when groundwater is considered.

December public review comments on this topic are collated in Appendix D, Table D-2.

WATER-RELATED TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Resource experts and public meeting attendees were also asked for information about trends and projections relevant to state water planning. Below is a summary of input so far. Some of the contributions below are trends, some projections, some both. All would benefit from additional documentation.

- Changes in irrigated acreage (see Figure 35) are occurring. Between 1987 and 20023, irrigated acres by county increased in Pondera, Teton, and Chouteau counties (possibly due to additional acreage under sprinkler), and decreased in headwaters counties (possibly due to conversion of agricultural to residential uses). Gallatin and Madison counties are seeing high conversion from agricultural land to residential uses. One person noted that irrigation expansions from the 1980s have significantly affected water availability.

- We may see crop shifts that change agricultural water requirements (e.g., to potatoes). The growing season is longer, and genetic advances are allowing different crops to be grown than in the past (e.g., corn in the Gallatin valley).

3 DNRC is working to update this information for the most recent ten years.

26 | P a g e

FIGURE 35. CHANGES IN PERCENT OF IRRIGATED ACRES BY COUNTY: 1987-2002 Source: ECONorthwest, with data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service (2004a). See Technical Memorandum 2.3 - Net Impacts of Irrigation in Montana for more detail. - Forest fires change runoff patterns.

- Changes in industrial uses are difficult to predict, as they are heavily influenced by markets. Hydropower will likely continue to be the largest industrial water use in the basin. Hydropower retrofits and upgrades are more likely than new projects. Paper products demand has declined.

- There are increased threats of aquatic invasive species infesting Montana's waters.

- Recent irrigation infrastructure changes have focused investments on upgrading facilities to move water more efficiently (e.g., improvements to Ruby Dam, canal lining, putting laterals in pipes, etc.). Many irrigators are also running more water continuously, rather than conducting periodic shutdowns.

- Climate conditions are warming, but future changes in the amount of precipitation are uncertain. Timing and type of precipitation will likely change, affecting natural systems and water uses. Spring snowpack reconstruction studies using tree ring data show recent declines for the Northern Rockies and Greater Yellowstone regions (see Figure 36). FIGURE 36. RECONSTRUCTED CHRONOLOGIES OF SPRING SNOWPACK IN THREE REGIONS Reduced low-elevation snow would Source: Source: Pederson, et al. 2011. The unusual nature of recent snowpack declines in the North harm fish species. American cordillera. Science 333:332-335.

27 | P a g e

- As with other water users, municipalities will continue to evaluate options for conservation, drought planning, water reuse, leak repair, better measurement, and supply redundancy. If wastewater must be land-applied, there will be huge financial impacts to municipalities and rural utilities, which will drive different approaches.

- Partially due to more water-efficient household appliances, per capita water consumption in major cities across the nation has been declining.

- Pond development has been increasing and creates evaporative losses.

- Relevant recreation trends include higher entry of women and youth in fishing, increasing participation by non- residents, and continued increased demand for water-based recreation opportunities. Recreational access to water will continue to grow as a top need in Montana. The "Geotourism" focus of Montana tourism developers will accentuate the role of water-based recreation and tourism and increase the need to protect these resources to attract this "new" money and desired investors. Recreational use of reservoirs built for other purposes has increased significantly (including tailwater fisheries) and will likely continue. Water marketed from Canyon Ferry Reservoir to meet new irrigation, municipal, industrial, or other purpose could affect lake levels and river flows currently enjoyed by recreationists.

- Between 2010 and 2030, the state population is projected to grow by 16.7 percent, to nearly 1.17 million residents. Overall, population growth in the Upper Missouri Basin is expected be 12% over that period, meaning more demand for various consumptive and non- consumptive water uses. As shown in Figure 37, the populations of most counties in the Upper Missouri River Basin are projected to increase between 10 to 20 percent by 2030. FIGURE 37. MONTANA 2010 TO 2030 PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE PROJECTIONS Source: Census and Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce - Recent increased levels of exempt well development (see Figure 38) affect groundwater patterns and conditions.

- Recent years have seen significant shifts from flood to sprinkler irrigation, facilitated at least in part by Farm Bill funds and programs. The last two Farm Bills have contained less funds to convert, however, so this trend may slow. The trend is also self-perpetuating for irrigators dependent on return flow; as upstream neighbors convert to sprinklers and reduce return flow, downstream irrigators see no choice but to convert as well.

28 | P a g e

- Water value and cost - As water becomes more valuable it will be more tightly managed. Power prices are also a significant factor in water management.

December public review period comments related to this topic are collated in Appendix D, Table D-3.

DATA GAPS One of the charges to the Council is to identify and prioritize data gaps related to water planning. As with the above topics, the Council heard from resource experts and provided opportunities for public meeting attendees to FIGURE 38. WELL DEVELOPMENT REPORTED TO DNRC identify data gaps. At their October work session, the Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, with data from DNRC Council used a dot-voting method to prioritize the gap input they had received. The results are listed in Table 10, as they prioritized them. Priority should only be interpreted in a general sense, as a few gaps were added, and many of the topics overlap.

Table 10. Data Gaps Input, Prioritized Council Data Gap Cumulative Score Good estimates of available water supply, both surface and groundwater, and existing legal water demand. Modeling should be done for decreased supply and increased demand. Groundwater 52 modeling should account for availability and timing, and linkages to surface water, especially in areas of high population density A more comprehensive full-year, long-term, streamflow gauging system 47 Effects of basin closure exceptions and past and potential future depletions via stock and domestic 46 wells that are exempt from permitting Scale and effect of illegal use of water 35 Differences in evapotranspiration between sprinkler and flood irrigation, and general impacts of 33 conversion from flood to sprinkler Actual vs. claimed (paper vs actual) water use 28 A decision support system (DSS) that maps water availability by stream reach, including tributaries, under different management scenarios. (See examples from Colorado, Texas, Michigan, North 21 Carolina, Florida, Massachusetts - all used different methods) Impacts of over-allocation on existing rights 16 Inventory of innovative water use practices, including grey water, conservation, low-use 15 appliances, low-water landscape practices, incentives, etc. Integrated water quality and quantity monitoring and planning (e.g., East Gallatin wastewater 14 contribution to flow and potential for EPA-required land application) Good understanding of changes in recreation demand or preferences associated with population 14 growth Comparison of water use by type of development (compact vs. sprawl) and in riparian areas 14 Comprehensive public capital spending on water projects 14 Percent of time instream water reservations are met 11 Fish, wildlife, and riparian flow needs during spring runoff NA (added at meeting) Options for two-pipe systems in ag/residential areas where municipal user becomes shareholder NA (added and helps maintain water delivery infrastructure at meeting)

29 | P a g e

Climate change projections, accounting for greater supply and demand uncertainty NA (added at meeting) Demographic projections NA (added at meeting) Effects of cloud seeding in Idaho and potential adverse effects on southwestern Montana NA (added snowpack to match next steps)

Respondents to the December public input period, though a small sample, rated "streamflow gaging" and "actual vs. claimed water use" as their highest cumulative data gaps, followed by "water supply and demand estimates", then a three-way tie between "differences between flood and sprinkler", "impacts of overallocation", and "comparison of water use by type of development". This information is mere tallies of cumulative ratings (see Appendix D), not statistically significant results.

ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE SCOPING PROCESS This section summarizes the issues input generated and received by the Council. At the Council's September meeting, members divided into small groups, listed issues relevant to the Plan Update, then each group selected their top three issues to discuss with the full group. All issues written down were recorded, and individuals could also provide issues on a separate from. The same process was used in the five regional public scoping meetings. The Council's facilitator then grouped the recorded issues into issue "themes", and the Council reviewed and used a dot-voting process in small groups to prioritize the issue themes at its October meeting. They did not add issues at that meeting, although there was some discussion that "address illegal water use" might not have been adequately covered. They also did not delete any issues from the list.

The issue themes are described in Table 11, ordered by Council priority from their October work session.

Table 11. Issue Themes, Prioritized Cumulative Issue Theme Council Score Increase Water Storage/Retention Participants expressed strong and frequent interest in methods to capture high flows and retain them in the basin longer for additional flexibility in the late season and to accommodate expanded demand. There was some mention of "traditional" on-stream storage (including potential expansion of existing reservoirs), but also frequent mention of off-stream storage, as well as groundwater recharge and "natural" storage enhancement in wetlands, beaver ponds, riparian areas, floodplains, 55 and healthy watersheds. Questions were raised regarding cost-effectiveness, and participants encouraged all uses to be involved in the development of options. Some specific areas were mentioned as particularly needing of additional storage/retention, including the Big Hole, Teton, and Sun drainages. A suggestion was made to use existing irrigation infrastructure (i.e. canals) in the off-season in aquifer recharge efforts. Better Understand and Manage Surface and Groundwater Interaction Also overlapping with other topics, participating groups identified the conjunctive management of surface and groundwater as a priority for the Plan. This includes the potential to use canals for 51 aquifer recharge, the protection of senior users from exempt well depletions, and better understanding return flow conditions.

30 | P a g e

Recognize Water's Role in the Future of State and the Economy Several groups included in their priorities the continuation of existing uses while providing for growth for industry, agriculture, and municipal and recreational uses. Others noted the need to 37 ensure the continuation of Montana's agricultural economy and associated water uses. Several noted the need to protect the prior appropriation doctrine. These were fairly broad statements, so are included here. Maintain and Enhance Instream Flow Several groups prioritized the need to include instream flow maintenance and enhancement in the 34 Plan Update. Included was a desire for balancing instream and agricultural needs, and for incentivizing participation in flow enhancement projects. Promote Local Cooperative Efforts Several groups prioritized the need to support and fund local watershed/user group/stakeholder cooperative efforts related to water efficiency, conservation, and pooled management. Incentivizing 31 voluntary participation was a priority, as well as increasing the flexibility to "move water around" within these partnerships and otherwise. Others noted the importance of good information in the success of these groups and their ability to be creative with water management. Increase Amount, Centralization, Diversity, and Access to Water Data A common priority across locations was the importance of accurate, high-quality, consistent, and accessible data from varied sources. There is high interest in additional measuring devices (and funds for them), as well as assistance with implementation and monitoring. One group suggested improvement of the gauging system to analyze return flows and better manage water as a result. Others noted the value of good information in fostering collaborative water management and 27 increasing accountability in water use. There were also groups suggesting a centralized clearinghouse or lead agency with responsibility for housing and evaluating the data, and ensuring databases could "talk to each other". Some suggested that data specialists needed more effective dialogue, and that data should be available from more diverse and non-traditional sources (e.g., courthouses, commissioners, etc.). Document and Project Water Use and Relationships Frequent mention was made of the need for information related to current water use, how those uses affect others, related trends, and projections by sector. Specific trends suggested for coverage 26 included the shift from agricultural land use to residential, consumptive use impacts downstream, altered irrigation practices, and the increased use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms - e.g., plants genetically engineered to better survive drought, etc.). Improve Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Several groups identified improved water efficiency and conservation as priorities, including the need for more pivots, pipelines, and canal improvements. They stated funding and implementation 21 assistance is needed, as well as related education and incentives for a variety of users including agriculture and municipalities. Others noted caveats related to potential impacts of efficiency improvements such as increased water consumption and effects on return flow. Assess and Project Available Water Supply A high number of participants cited a need for a better collective understanding of the water cycle, available water, and creation of a water balance (water in and out modeling) for the Basin. There was also interest in specific documentation of "available" water, including stored/contract water in 20 reservoirs. Several suggested the assessment of supply include consideration of climate change/variability on supply, timing, and use, including a likely pattern of earlier snowmelt. Effects on supply of a completed water right adjudication should also be included.

31 | P a g e

Analyze Water Transfers/Marketing/Banking and Scope of Water as Transferable Property Several groups raised both interests and concerns about water transfers - the need to plan for more water transactions, the potential for water banking, yet also the concern increasing values of water (and the ability to sever water from the land) are having and would continue to have on affordability 15 of family farms and effects on estates and property transfers. Included here are issues of the scope of the "property right" aspect of water rights, including some wanting to retain rights to long unused or conserved water, rather than unused water being available for new uses. Assess Select Large-Scale Factors This category covers concerns and interest in more information about tribal water rights, Endangered Species Act implications water management, potential demands for water from 13 downstream entities (agencies, states, countries), eminent domain actions, and public trust doctrine-related actions. Accelerate Water Rights Adjudication Process and Enforce There was broad (and sometimes quite pointed) support for quick completion of the water rights adjudication process and moving into strong enforcement in basins where there are not already water commissioners. There were suggestions for additional funds and oversight, streamlining the 11 process (tougher on timelines), and ensuring interest group involvement doesn't slow the process or increase participant costs. There were also interests in assessing the effects of the adjudication on water supplies. Improve Watershed/Forest Management Related to other topics, several groups prioritized the need to improve management of upland forests in relation to water quantity and quality. Factors listed included proper stocking, preserving 10 the capability of these lands to produce clean water, and mitigating effects of fires and high fuel loading. Advance Interrelation of Water Quantity and Quality Several groups focused on both issues and opportunities for integrating water quality considerations into the Plan Update. They noted that water quality issues, especially pollution issues at low flows, are integrally related to flow and can be a constraint on additional water use. There are flow-related 9 pollution problems in the basin that could either be helped or aggravated by flow changes. Some specific priorities mentioned included setbacks, increasing DEQ enforcement authority, concerns over the potential for aquatic invasive species, and wastewater reuse as a component of future water supply. Address Certain Specific Water Right Issues A couple issues very specific to water rights came up in the group prioritization processes - the effects of avulsion (stream capture of land, e.g., cutting off a meander) on points of diversion, and 0 the effects of climate change on periods of use (i.e., irrigation should be able to be started earlier if growing season is earlier).

The combination of respondents to the December public input period, though a small sample, rated highest "water's future role" then (a tie between) "surface/groundwater" and "efficiency and conservation", then "projecting available water supply".

MOVING TOWARD WATER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Note: The information in this section was being developed during the December public input period, so was not available for that review. The online input tool used during the review provided an opportunity for input on next steps, the results of which are collated in Appendix D, Table D-4.

32 | P a g e

At their October 24-25 Fort Benton meeting, the Council and resource experts again divided into small groups to develop suggestions for "next steps" to fulfill the Phase I issues scoping requirement that their Report must include "a prioritized list of steps, activities, tasks, or actions that will lead to developing recommendations and water management strategies and plans in Phases II and III". The Council's facilitator divided the meeting's 25 attendees into six groups, spreading Council members and resource experts as evenly across the groups as possible. Each group was asked to address two issues, with each issue covered by two groups. That distribution meant only nine issues could be addressed, so the top nine were assigned for the first round of small group discussions. The assignments ensured that resource experts relevant to specific issues were in the groups assigned those issues

FIGURE 39. COUNCIL SMALL GROUP WORK IN FORT BENTON

Each group listed in worksheets their suggested steps, potential entities that could assist with each step, and some ideas for timeframe, for each of their two assigned issues. The Council's facilitator gathered the worksheets and input their ideas into a matrix, combining group suggestions by issue. The groups then gathered and discussed the results, reconciled any conflicts between steps, and refined as they could the next steps for the top nine issues. Not wanting to drop the other six issues, they divided again into small groups and went through the same process for those. There was insufficient time to gather as a full group to discuss these group suggestions; instead, the Council's facilitator summarized this input and distributed it after the meeting.

With the list still in multi-group format, the Council's facilitator used the public review period to work with the Council and DNRC to merge the Fort Benton product into a more readable, implementable list of suggested next steps, and related resources potentially available to the Council as they pursue these topics. She also tried to wrap in the identified data gaps, where they weren't already incorporated, to ensure a comprehensive set of suggestions. This list is provided in Table 12. Suggestions from Council discussions or dialogue with DNRC of

33 | P a g e

available analyses that could increase the Council's efficiency in Phase II are incorporated into the far right column. Please note that the issue theme text is not repeated here, but the suggestions are specific to pursuing the issues as described in Table 11. Per DNRC request, there is no addressing of timeframe or specific suggestions for meeting items or format.

In addition to the issue-specific steps/concepts in Table 12, at the Fort Benton meeting, the Council Chairman identified and requested a selection of Council/Expert teams to review the existing State Water Plan chapters (see "Part II" at http://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_mgmt/montana_state_waterplan/default.asp) and report back to the group at a future meeting. He assigned a chapter to each team and requested they review it for 1) what is still current, and 2) anything that might be relevant to recommend for inclusion in the Plan Update.

Public input related to next steps from the December review included suggestions related to monitoring, adjudication, data/science, public awareness, collaboration, water allocation, economics, enforcement, and the Plan process. See Appendix D, Table D-4 for specifics.

HOW TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROCESS Additional, DNRC-initiated public review opportunities will be provided in Phases II and III of the planning. If you wish to be apprised of Council activities and additional State Water Plan Update input opportunities please send your contact information to [email protected].

NEXT STEPS This Report concludes the Council's Phase I (Issues Scoping) work. Beginning in 2014, with DNRC and resource expert assistance, the Council will be further exploring their high-priority topics in Phase II (Technical Studies and Feedback) and developing findings and recommendations to present to DNRC by summer.

The Council thanks all who have shared their time and expertise in this process and encourages continued public involvement in their deliberations. All members are available and willing to discuss issues in their community or interest areas throughout the 2014 Plan Update process. See Table 2 for Council member contact information.

FIGURE 40. MISSOURI RIVER AT FORT BENTON (A.SCHWEND PHOTO)

34 | P a g e

Table 12. Next Steps and Potential Resources

Suggested Next Steps, by Prioritized Issue Theme Potential Resources Possible Time-Savers (see Table 11 for full text of issues related to these "Next Steps") 1. Increase Water Storage/Retention . US Bureau of . Council/Expert review Reclamation of the Storage section A. Make available to the Council current data on the number, condition, water supply, need, ownership, of the current Water use(s), and hydrologic availability for all existing facilities in the Basin capable of storing at least 2,000 acre . DNRC Dam Safety Plan feet of water. Include both a list and a map. Where the hydrologic availability analysis indicates un- Program contracted water, identify how much and the reason for it being un-contracted. . Past DNRC storage . DNRC Drought reports to the B. For major multi-use or irrigation storage reservoirs, provide their cost of construction. Summarize the Committee staff Legislature past state water plan process related to storage projects, including priorities and funding. Review any other . DNRC Water Projects available proposals for new storage or reoperations. . Planned analyses for Bureau State Water Plan C. Assess the potential for non-structural storage (e.g., floodplains, wetlands, groundwater/artificial . Montana Bureau of update recharge, gravel pits), how much could be stored in these, and how such storage could be legally Mines and Geology protected/administered. Identify favorable basin locations for artificial recharge. . Consider using Big . DNRC Water Resources Hole/Teton/Sun as test D. Identify structures that could be managed differently for more efficient system-wide management, and Bureau cases to focus explore approaches to manage traditional and non-traditional storage in the basin as a system to improve discussion water availability. . Canal companies . US Geological Survey . DEQ (re non-structural) 2. Better Understand and Manage Surface and Groundwater Interaction . Montana Bureau of . Exempt well policy Mines and Geology summaries from A. Assess who is doing what related to surface water/groundwater interaction, both programs and data, Legislative Services agency and private, and funding sources. Determine who has assessed hydrologic effects of changes in land . DNRC use and changes in agricultural practices and the results of those assessments. . US Geological Survey B. Reach out to local groups dealing with these issues, assess their needs, and what resources are available . Natural Resources to address them. Conservation Service C. Obtain an update on the history and status of rule-making on exempt wells. D. Develop a plan to obtain additional needed information. 3. Recognize Water's Role in the Future of the State and Economy . US/Montana . Projections being Departments of prepared for Plan A. Develop accurate demographic, use sector, and land use information and projections; determine Agriculture Update

35 | P a g e

projected growth locations and per capita water use. . Montana Census and . Existing NGO county- Economic Information specific projections B. Assess limiting factors affecting water availability for growth of towns and cities, including the status of Center regional water projects and the availability and use of municipal water reservations. . Water valuations by . US Geological sector from 1985 C. Explore options for simplifying water right changes to expedite economic development without harming Survey/Bureau of Reservations process or over-allocating water resources or adversely affecting water rights. Reclamation . Education D. Describe value and economic worth of water use by sector. . US Census Bureau/US opportunities through E. Understand and describe the prior appropriation doctrine - constitutional, case law, and statutory. Forest Service the Water Plan Update process F. Develop educational materials related to broad water use, including who needs water when, to foster . Montana Watercourse collaboration among users. . Water Rights booklet (needs updating) G. Ensure flexibility in the system to account for unpredicted growth areas and unexpected contingencies. 4. Maintain and Enhance Instream Flow . US Bureau of . Existing naturalized Reclamation flow analyses A. Quantify the degree to which streamflow in the basin is currently altered from the natural flow regime. Where data are available, compare reservoir inflow to outflow and/or pre- to post-infrastructure . Montana Department of . Indicators of daily streamflow. Where such data are not available, naturalized streamflow data may be synthesized to Fish, Wildlife & Parks Hydrologic Alteration compare with current data. (IHA) software . DNRC B. Determine what areas/groups have flow management programs and/or agreements and find out what . Watershed groups got them started, how they are working, what protections there are for water right holders, and how flows are protected instream. . Conservation groups involved in flow C. Learn about quantification methods for instream flow needs, existing instream flow rights, how often protection/ those rights are fulfilled and when/where they are not fulfilled. Understand the ecological needs of high enhancement flows before allocating them to offstream use D. Assess barriers to and incentives for instream flow enhancement. 5. Promote Local Cooperative Efforts . DNRC . Nebraska model for resource districts A. Assess collaborative watershed organizations, including watershed councils, conservation districts, river . DEQ along watershed lines councils, and others. Determine who participates, scale of inclusivity, funding sources, challenges, . Montana Watershed opportunities, data gaps, keys to success, and needs. Coordination Council B. Assess funding amounts, sources, and eligibility criteria related to watershed work, including state, (MWCC) federal, and other programs. Develop strategies for state support of watershed work, including funds and . Montana Association of staffing. Conservation Districts C. Identify ways to support and encourage conservation districts, watershed groups, and others to be more (MACD)

36 | P a g e

active in Basin-wide planning. . Watershed groups D. Explore the potential to realign conservation district boundaries along watershed lines. . Conservation District Councils . Bureau of Reclamation 6. Increase Amount, Centralization, Diversity, and Access to Water Data . DNRC . A river council prepared a summary A. Assess status of implementation of the statutory mandate for a centralized water information system. . US Geological Survey of water resources Evaluate if and to what extent the current system does or could incorporate the suggestions below. . Natural Resources data that could be Determine if this is the appropriate clearinghouse, and if so, how to support, including private, cost-share Conservation Service shared and public funding. If not the appropriate clearinghouse, determine the steps required and associated costs to develop a single, accessible clearinghouse for existing and new data referenced below. Ensure or . Montana Bureau of . Other states have develop consistent collection protocols. Mines and Geology water resource data simulation programs B. Where not already done, compile a list of existing water resources data sources (including stream flow, . Water Information snowpack, water rights, diversions, return flows, climate, consumption). Include not only agency data, but System within the . The Water private (where agreeable), watershed, and other sources. Ensure that data uses the same basis (ie, National Natural Resources Information System is Hydrography Dataset, NHD) and can be integrated. Information System under new (State Library) management C. Increase collection of diversion and return flow data. Determine data shortage locations and identify options for requiring, incentivizing (including to private data), and funding measurement of diversions and return flow. D. Explore approaches to increase numbers of stream gages in basins. Identify funding sources and partners. Learn from river systems that have higher gage density (e.g., Musselshell, Big Hole). Assess options for simulating water resources data where it is not measured. 7. Document and Project Water Use and Relationships . DNRC . Steps in "Water's Role in the Future" will help A. Summarize existing water demands and use and how/why they have changed over the last 25 years. . US Geological Survey address this issue area Summarize new water permits and changes issued in the last ten years, by purpose and location, and assess . Dept of Commerce/ patterns. . 1980 water use Census summary B. Summarize basin-wide demographic and trend data to enable water user projections. Consider scenario modeling, including a changing period of use/timing. . The USGS does 5-year water use summaries See also steps under "Water's Role..." topic. 8. Improve Water Use Efficiency and Conservation . Cities A. Evaluate education tools and incentives (including energy savings) to encourage water-saving fixtures . Utilities and quantify their benefits.

37 | P a g e

B. Evaluate how to promote water use efficiency on individual lots served by wells. . DNRC C. Assess the legal aspects of wastewater reuse and where it is occurring. . US Natural Resources Conservation Service D. Assess pros and cons of various irrigation efficiency practices and the implications on agriculture and watersheds. Foster public understanding on the topic. Develop a Council understanding of when and where . Montana State efficiency projects are good (e.g., locations where pivots or canal lining make sense and others where University Extension groundwater storage from flood irrigation is desirable). . Montana Department of E. Assess what does and should happen with the water that is saved. Agriculture F. Prevent weeds and invasive species. . Conservation districts G. Evaluate what is known about illegal water use and any relevant enforcement. . DEQ . Montana Weed Control Association/Aquatic Invasive Species Council . Montana League of Cities and Towns 9. Assess and Project Available Water Supply . DNRC . Modeling underway for Water Plan Update A. Model current and projected streamflow conditions using the full period of record. Project changes in . DEQ quality, quantity, and timing of water supply due to climate change. . USGS Stream Stats . Montana Wetlands B. Support the existing data collection efforts and expand them through traditional and non-traditional Council sources (e.g., agencies, private individuals, etc.). . Bureau of Reclamation C. Use the above information to assess the adaptability of other use and storage options. . US Geological Survey D. Compare physical availability analysis with an assessment of legal availability. . National Weather E. Assess availability and process of obtaining federal contract water. Service F. Evaluate whether statutory changes are justified to account for changing periods of use due to climate . National Oceanic and change. Atmospheric Administration See also entries for Issues 1 (storage), 6 (data), and 15 (large-scale issues) . Montana Legislature 10. Analyze Water Transfers/Marketing/Banking and Scope of Water as Transferable Property . DNRC . Western States Water Council Water A. Through a survey of other states, research and identify water transfer tools that would work within . Other states Transfers in the West Montana's current water laws.,. Evaluate cost and marketing issues across water use sectors (e.g., industry . Montana Department of report, to be discussed

38 | P a g e

vs. agriculture), including the value change of water. Transportation at 2014 Water Policy Interim Committee B. Investigate strategies to support a potential water transfer/marketing program, including changing meeting existing water laws. 11. Assess Select Large-Scale Factors . Montana Reserved . Blackfeet tribal staff will Water Rights Compact provide their US Senate A. Obtain information on how inter-jurisdictional compacts and commissions might affect current and Commission testimony related to future water availability. Compacts of interest include Blackfeet, Rocky Boy, Fort Belknap, and Confederated the Blackfeet compact Salish and Kootenai. . Tribes B. Understand Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed and candidate species and critical habitat if designated. . Bureau of Reclamation Determine how listings and recovery programs might affect current and future water availability. Evaluate . US Army Corps of and document success of the Big Hole habitat conservation plan and evaluate similar potential in other Engineers areas. Assess other ways to meet ESA needs. . Big Hole Watershed C. Determine how downstream needs for navigation, etc., might affect basin water management. Committee/Arctic Understand the US Army Corps of Engineers' Master Manual for Fort Peck and how it could affect basin Grayling team (AS) water management. . Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 12. Accelerate Water Rights Adjudication Process and Enforce . Legislative Fiscal Division . The Chief Water Judge sent a memo A. Determine how much money is in the adjudication revenue fund and projected costs for completion . Montana Water Court responding to the B. Determine the proportion of basin rights that have been adjudicated and those left to complete. Include . DNRC Council's suggested status of both DNRC and Water Court processes. next steps for this topic. . Local Water C. Determine anticipated impact on cost and timing of completion of the 2013 law providing for Commissioners and adjudication of rights previously exempt from filing (SB 355). District Courts D. Keep the Water Court focused on adjudicating pre-1973 rights and not taking on new duties. E. Continue to employ necessary DNRC folks for post-decree assistance and build a system to help transition to enforcement. 13. Improve Watershed/Forest/Rangeland Management . US Forest Service . 2013 information presented by US Forest A. Understand how forest and rangeland health affects water quality and quantity, including general . Montana State Forester Service and Montana hydrologic dynamics related to forest cover changes (beetle kill, fire, timber harvest), riparian changes . Private forest owners State Forester to (grazing), and beaver activity, and their impact on water storage. Assess what constitutes a healthy forest. Environmental Quality . DEQ B. Identify opportunities for increased "natural" systems for water storage in our headwater/forested Council (EQC) on streams through practices that promote watershed health and proper stream functioning across forest resource limitations,

39 | P a g e

management agencies and landowners. . Grazing associations challenges, ,and opportunities for our C. Discuss management strategies that enhance snowpack retention, water quality, and stream flow. . Landowners forested watersheds Consider use of vegetative management and fire. Emphasize importance of Snotel sites. . US Bureau of Land . Results of 2013 EQC D. Ensure coordination between DNRC State Lands and Water Resources divisions. Management survey of County E. Determine opportunities to provide input into US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management, State Commissioners on Forest, and private planning efforts and projects. issues related to federal land management F. Investigate cloud seeding operations in Idaho and potential adverse effect on southwestern Montana snowpack. 14. Advance Interrelation of Water Quantity and Quality . DEQ A. Obtain summary information on statewide water quality assessment, water quality standards, and . DNRC impaired water bodies. Summarize basin-wide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans and assessments . Montana Bureau of Mines and how or if those plans relate to the State Water Plan. Assess where quality aspects could or do affect and Geology water availability. . US Geological Survey B. Request legal analysis of water re-use from a water rights perspective. Discuss how municipalities may approach water re-use or discharge choices, given recent changes in water quality standards. . Montana Department of Agriculture . Bureau of Reclamation . Groundwater Assessment Committee 15. Address Certain Specific Water Right Issues . DNRC A. Identify specific water right issues from regional public meetings. B. Verify relevant legislative actions already taken. C. Identify steps to correct issues that have not already been resolved. D. If there are major climate change effects on period of use, explore further.

40 | P a g e

APPENDIX A - MONTANA STATE WATER PLAN STATUTE

85-1-203. State water plan. (1) The department shall gather from any source reliable information relating to Montana's water resources and prepare from the information a continuing comprehensive inventory of the water resources of the state. In preparing this inventory, the department may: (a) conduct studies; (b) adopt studies made by other competent water resource groups, including federal, regional, state, or private agencies; (c) perform research or employ other competent agencies to perform research on a contract basis; and (d) hold public hearings in affected areas at which all interested parties must be given an opportunity to appear. (2) The department shall formulate and adopt and amend, extend, or add to a comprehensive, coordinated multiple-use water resources plan known as the "state water plan". The state water plan may be formulated and adopted in sections, with some of these sections corresponding with hydrologic divisions of the state. The state water plan must set out a progressive program for the conservation, development, utilization, and sustainability of the state's water resources and propose the most effective means by which these water resources may be applied for the benefit of the people, with due consideration of alternative uses and combinations of uses. (3) Sections of the state water plan must be completed for the Missouri, Yellowstone, and Clark Fork River basins, submitted to the 2015 legislature, and updated at least every 20 years. These basinwide plans must include: (a) an inventory of consumptive and nonconsumptive uses associated with existing water rights; (b) an estimate of the amount of surface and ground water needed to satisfy new future demands; (c) analysis of the effects of frequent drought and new or increased depletions on the availability of future water supplies; (d) proposals for the best means, such as an evaluation of opportunities for storage of water by both private and public entities, to satisfy existing water rights and new water demands; (e) possible sources of water to meet the needs of the state; and (f) any legislation necessary to address water resource concerns in these basins. (4) (a) The department shall create a water user council in both the Yellowstone and Missouri River basins that is inclusive and representative of all water interests and interests in those basins. For the Clark Fork River basin, the department shall continue to utilize the Clark Fork River basin task force established pursuant to 85-2-350. (b) The councils in the Missouri and Yellowstone River basins consist of representatives of existing watershed groups or councils within the basins. (c) Each council may have up to 20 members. (d) Each water user council shall make recommendations to the department on the basinwide plans required by subsection (3). (5) Before adopting the state water plan or any section of the plan, the department shall hold public hearings in the state or in an area of the state encompassed by a section of the plan if adoption of a section is proposed. Notice of the hearing or hearings must be published for 2 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general county circulation in each county encompassed by the proposed plan or section of the plan at least 30 days prior to the hearing. (6) The department shall submit to the environmental quality council established in 5-16-101 and to the legislature at the beginning of each regular session the state water plan or any section of the plan or amendments, additions, or revisions to the plan that the department has formulated and adopted. (7) The legislature, by joint resolution, may revise the state water plan. (8) The department shall prepare a continuing inventory of the ground water resources of the state. The ground

A-1 | P a g e

water inventory must be included in the comprehensive water resources inventory described in subsection (1) but must be a separate component of the inventory. (9) The department shall publish the comprehensive inventory, the state water plan, the ground water inventory, or any part of each, and the department may assess and collect a reasonable charge for these publications. (10) In developing and revising the state water plan as provided in this section, the department shall consult with the environmental quality council established in 5-16-101 and solicit the advice of the environmental quality council in carrying out its duties under this section.

History: En. Sec. 5, Ch. 158, L. 1967; amd. Sec. 138, Ch. 253, L. 1974; R.C.M. 1947, 89-132.1(1) thru (5); amd. Sec. 18, Ch. 573, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 381, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 417, Ch. 418, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 70, Ch. 545, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 404, L. 2009.

A-2 | P a g e

APPENDIX B - BASIN ADVISORY COUNCIL GUIDELINES

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The purpose of this document is to outline the process and ground rules to guide the activities of the participants involved in the 2015 Montana Water Supply Initiative Basin Advisory Councils (BACs). It describes the purpose, participants, and process of the BACs.

1.2 Authority for establishment of the is BACs is contained in the State Water Plan Statute (85-1-203(4)(a)) which states: “The Department (DNRC) shall create a water user council in both the Yellowstone and Missouri River basins that is inclusive and representative of all water interests and interests in those basins.”

2.0 PURPOSES 2.1 The purposes of the BACs are to:

2.1.1 Provide input and recommendations to DNRC on the basin plans required by 85-1-203(3).

2.1.2 Serve as advisors to DNRC and provide an avenue of communication and discourse between the various interests within the basin.

2.1.3 Evaluate strategies, studies and proposed actions for improving the understanding, management and conservation of water resources in the basin.

3.0 DUTIES 3.1 Advisory Capacity. The BACs will act in an advisory capacity to the DNRC for purposes of the basin planning process.

3.2 Geographic Jurisdiction. The geographic jurisdiction of the BAC’s work is restricted to the identified basin.

3.3 Duties and Responsibilities. Responsibilities of the BACs are as follows:

3.3.1 Serve as a forum for public comment and communicating the results of technical studies pertaining to water supply and use.

3.3.2 Represent their constituency and assist the DNRC in communicating with local water interests.

3.3.3 Assist the DNRC in identifying Best Management Practices for the management and conservation of water resources.

3.34 Develop recommendations for the DNRC regarding the preparation, amendment, and implementation of the State Water Plan.

B-1 | P a g e

4.0 MEMBER QUALIFICATIONS, SELECTION AND SERVICE 4.1 Eligibility. Appointees to the BAC will be made by the DNRC, which will select from a comprehensive list of nominees. Nominations will be solicited from the conservation districts, basin watershed groups, industry groups, economic development groups, resource interest groups, and the public at large. All of the nominees should have demonstrated interests in the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the Basin. To be eligible for appointment a candidate must:

4.1.1 Be qualified through education, training, knowledge, or experience to give informed and objective advice regarding an industry, discipline, or interest specified in the BAC’s guidelines (see Section 5.1); and

4.1.2 Have demonstrated experience or knowledge of the geographical area under the scope of the identified BAC.

4.2 Residency and Recommendation. Members must be residents of the Basin and must be able to demonstrate interests in the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the Basin.

4.3 Duration of Appointment. Members will be appointed to serve approximately a two-year term. Appointments will be effective upon written DNRC approval. In any case appointments will cease December 31, 2014.

4.5 Conflict of Interest. Members must disclose their direct or indirect interest in issues pertaining to water within the Basin. Membership may be terminated if: 1) they no longer represent the constituency for which they were appointed, or 2) they are involved in water rights related litigation within the basin.

4.6 Vacancies. Vacancies occurring for reasons such as resignation, death, a change in residency through relocation outside of the basin, or failure to regularly attend meetings, will be reported to DNRC, who will fill the vacated position.

4.7 Compensation. Members serve without salary, but will be reimbursed at the official state government rate for lodging, mileage and per diem expenses incurred in transit to and from official meetings. Reimbursement for overnight accommodations must be pre-approved by DNRC.

5.0 WATER RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 5.1 Membership on the BAC will be balanced with representation from the following water interests:

5.1.1 Agricultural, industrial, commercial and local business. For example: agricultural producers; irrigation districts; petroleum producers and refiners; electrical generating plant operators; agricultural product processers; and real estate development interests.

5.1.2 Conservation, recreation, and instream flow. For example: representatives of environmental and resource conservation groups; watershed groups; sportsmen and outdoor recreation advocates; commercial river recreational businesses; cultural and historical interests; the public at large; and scientists/engineers/biologists involved in water science and water-related resource inventory.

5.1.3 Elected and administrative. For example: local, county, federal and tribal elected officials or employees with responsibility pertaining to water use and management; conservation district supervisors; dam operators; land use planners; public water supply managers; park managers; and disaster/emergency coordinators.

5.1.4 Public at Large.

B-2 | P a g e

5.2 Each BAC may have up to 20 members §85-1-203 (4)(c). To the extent possible, membership on the BAC will be geographically distributed within the basin with individual members distributed through-out the upper, middle, and lower basin.

5.3 Consistent with Sections 6.4 and 11.0 of this document, the members of the BAC will actively seek input and advice of the constituencies they represent.

6.0 BAC MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1 Consensus. Members agree to seek consensus. Consensus means that even though a voting member may not agree that a given issue or recommendation warrants inclusion in the Basin Plan, he/she does not disagree enough to warrant opposition to its inclusion. Members agree to:

6.1.1 participate fully and consistently in the process unless they withdraw;

6.1.2 fully explore and understand all issues before the BAC;

6.1.3 search for creative solutions to address the interests and concerns of all members.

6.2 Disagreement. Each member has the ability to disagree with any reasonable and/or legitimate proposal, but assumes a responsibility for providing constructive feedback.

6.2.1 Lack of Consensus. If consensus is not achieved on any issue/recommendation, the BAC shall report to DNRC on the issue/recommendation dividing the membership, along with a voting record. Under these circumstances a minority report will be included with any recommendation arising from a split vote.

6.3 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES 6.3.1 Each member agrees to candidly identify and share his or her interests.

6.3.2 Each member agrees to listen carefully and respectfully to other participants and to avoid interrupting other participants.

6.3.3 Each member agrees to offer suggestions with respect and care.

6.3.4 Each member agrees to share relevant information regarding the issues under consideration.

6.3.5 Each member agrees to communicate with each other directly, rather than through the news media.

6.3.6 Each member agrees to challenge ideas, not individuals.

6.3.7 Each member agrees to respect the decision of any member to withdraw from the process at any time and for any reason.

6.3.8 Each member agrees to express to the other members the reason for their withdrawal from the process.

6.3.9 If a member is unable to attend a meeting, he/she can convey his/her view point to the Chair via written correspondence, which will be shared with the BAC.

6.4 RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSTITUENCIES

B-3 | P a g e

6.4.1 Each member agrees to express the interests of the constituency that they represent.

6.4.2 Each member agrees to seek the advice of their constituency throughout the process.

6.4.3 Each member agrees to make every effort to represent and speak for their constituency.

6.4.4 Each member agrees to objectively explain and interpret the process and its outcomes to their constituency.

6.4.5 Each member agrees to keep their constituency informed of the activities and ideas emerging from the process.

7.0 EX OFFICIO MEMBERSHIP 7.1 Ex officio membership is encouraged. Ex officio members provide advice, guidance and expertise as representatives of government agencies (federal, state, local) with trust responsibilities, or administrative or regulatory jurisdiction. Ex officio members will not be reimbursed for travel expenses.

7.2 Ex officio members do not vote, but have the option of making professional suggestions or recommendations to inform committee discussions and recommendations.

7.4 Ex officio members (or their designees) should participate and attend meetings on a consistent basis, as is reasonable and appropriate for the agency they represent.

7.5 It is incumbent upon ex officio members to share relevant information regarding the issues under consideration by the BAC.

7.6 Ex officio members agree to act as a liaison between their agency and the BAC and will, routinely, keep their agencies informed of the activities of the BAC.

8.0 MEETINGS 8.1 Meeting Purpose and Frequency. BAC meetings convened as part of the Montana Water Supply Initiative will occur in 3 phases:

Phase 1 - issue identification (scoping),

Phase 2 - technical studies (presentation of results), alternative identification and

Phase 3 - recommendation and plan development.

The BACs will meet during all three phases. It is anticipated that there will be 10-12 meetings convened over the term in various parts of the basin.

8.2 Public involvement. All meetings will be open to the general public and representatives of the news media. Any organization, association, or individual may file a statement with or appear before the Upper Missouri BAC regarding topics on the meeting agenda.

8.3 Public notification. A notice of each meeting and a meeting agenda will be sent to the news media in advance of each meeting. The notice shall set forth the purpose, time and place of the meeting.

B-4 | P a g e

8.4 Quorum. A quorum will consist of a majority of the appointed members.

8.5 Voting. Members from the four groups described in Section 5.1 above constitute the voting membership.

8.6 Voting procedures. If after repeated attempts, consensus is not achieved, a majority vote of the members present is needed to forward a recommendation to the DNRC (see Sections 6.2 and 6.3 for minority report and intention to reach consensus).

8.7 Proxy votes. Voting by proxy will not be accepted.

9.0 MEETING MANAGEMENT 9.1 Committee Officers. The Committee will elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from among the members at the initial meeting. Term of office for these positions will cease at the conclusion of the process (December 31, 2014).

9.2 Chair responsibilities. The Chair will manage and coordinate the regular meetings, including focusing the group on a common task; protecting individuals and their ideas from personal attacks, encouraging everyone to participate; and assisting the group to reach consensus.

9.3 Meeting Operation. Meetings of the BACs will be operated according to Robert’s Rules of Order. http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintroprint.htm

10.0 MEETING PROCEDURES 10.1 Agenda. The Chair and BAC contracted coordinator, in consultation with the BAC, will develop appropriate documents and an agenda for each meeting. The Chair will coordinate with DNRC and its contractor regarding agenda items. The Chair will distribute these materials with assistance from the contracted Coordinator.

10.2 Public Comment. There will be a set time for public comment at each meeting. The Chair may allow comment at other times throughout the meeting, at their discretion.

10.3 Meeting Records. Minutes of each meeting will be kept by the BAC Coordinator. The minutes will contain a record of the persons present; a complete description of matters discussed and conclusions reached; and copies of all documents received, issued, or approved by the BAC. Copies of the minutes will be maintained by DNRC and be published to the DNRC MWSI website.

11.0 COMMUNICATION 11.1 The Chair, with assistance from the Coordinator, will act as liaison to DNRC.

11.2 The work of the BAC will be reported regularly to DNRC by the Chair who will represent the consensus views, characterize deliberations, and when appropriate, express minority opinions.

11.3 The Coordinator, in consultation with DNRC and the Chair, will send meeting notices to the interested public and the media.

11.4 Communications with the media on behalf of the BAC shall be made only by the Chair, or the Chair’s designee.

11.5 No BAC member shall characterize the views of other members to the news media or in other forums such as Internet blogs.

B-5 | P a g e

APPENDIX C - DETAILED ISSUES SCOPING INPUT AS OF MID-OCTOBER, 2013

This collation of detailed public input is arranged in six sections, as follows:

Baseline planning information from the Council Kickoff meeting begins on page C-1 Additional baseline information from individuals associated with public meetings begins on page C-5 Council and public meeting group "top three" issues, by location, begins on page C-9 Council and public meeting raw (non-prioritized) group issues begins on page C-13 Individual input associated with the scoping meetings begins on page C-22, and Other input submitted during the public meeting phase (separate from meetings) begins on page C-27

BASELINE PLANNING INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL KICKOFF MEETING Below are notes from the "Sector" presentations from the Council's Kickoff meeting on September 5-6, 2013, in Three Forks, Montana. Meeting audio can be provided upon request for further detail.

AGRICULTURE

WHAT'S WORKING WELL Flood irrigation is working; lots still occurring; very labor intensive; not very efficient

Conversion to sprinkler working well too, but some implications – divert less, but may consume more (reducing return flow)

Some reservoirs can move excess to periods where needed. Ruby res released (35,000?) in late season

Some crops match water availability more than others (dryland); hay crops are more likely to have shortages later in the season

OVERSUPPLY Runoff may be more than needed; but even runoff in a dry year may not be enough

SHORTAGE Dry years in Aug; especially where no major storage project. Even storage projects can be subject to shortage

Can have shortage early, before runoff. Cold temps kept snow in mountains, but irrigators wanted to turn on

PROJECTIONS Shift to sprinkler irrigation

Headwaters areas showing decreases in irrigated acres (possibly converting to development, or economic factors, or both); increases in middle Missouri/Chouteau/Teton county areas.

May see shift in crop types grown – hay and pasture = 75%, barley and wheat make up the rest. Maybe more toward potatoes in future – different water demands

C-1 | P a g e

Surface water diversions for irrigation are 98% of total

Likely continued focus on irrigation infrastructure – e.g., work on Ruby Dam.

Some smaller laterals (even to sprinklers) being put in pipes; maybe some lining of larger canals

As water becomes more valuable, water will become more tightly managed.

DATA GAPS Differences in evapotranspiration between sprinkler and flood irrigation

Some additional information was exchanged through question and answer sessions with the presenters which is not summarized here. Relevant aspects were incorporated into summary materials.

FISH & WILDLIFE

WHAT’S WORKING WELL Partnerships are working well where can maintain flows for f/w needs – e.g., Jefferson (would have otherwise dried up at Waterloo); BH has good drought plan – shared sacrifice. Voluntary – require trust and understanding.

OVERSUPPLY Not much of an issue. Nests might be flooded. Can be physical damage (but tied back to land management). Flooding can be beneficial for fish; sometimes higher flows combine fry with bigger (predator) fish. Bell Creek flood took a lot of banks, especially those that were unvegetated.

SHORTAGE Shortage is rule. 200 miles of Teton that doesn’t flow. People working hard to try to address. Not just summer. Fish kills are the shocking events for public. Worried would have big kills this year, but partnerships probably saved them.

Wet-P inflection points where rate of change drops. Data for Smith showing biological ties to numbers.

Temperatures in Madison – PPL runs water down to reduce temp. Less water, the quicker it warms.

PROJECTIONS Consensus that conditions are warming. Precipitation predictions uncertain. If changes in timing and type, will affect f/w. Outlook not good for f/w. Tree ring studies in greater Yellowstone show drops in mid-1900s and 2000s; same for northern Rockies.

If don’t get low elevation snow, will be worse for fish.

Well drilling in Gallatin County 600 wells/yr in late 90s

Private ponds are issue as well – evaporative loss, affects groundwater

DATA GAPS Effects of basin closure exemptions; illegal use of water (pumps in river); % of time that instream water reservations met.

C-2 | P a g e

Some additional information was exchanged through question and answer sessions with the presenters which is not summarized here. Relevant aspects were incorporated into summary materials.

INDUSTRIAL

WHAT’S WORKING WELL (none specifically noted by presenter)

OVERSUPPLY (none specifically noted by presenter)

SHORTAGE PPL has 10,000 cfs claim for Cochrane Dam; water right not met much of year. Low flow years never met. Priority date is 1958 or 1960.

PROJECTIONS Difficult to predict changes in demands; markets influence – mining, energy production (O&G), hydro, construction, non-ag food, paper products. Hydropower likely biggest player. Construction more related to municipal demands. Mining has tapered off in many areas. Not a lot of O&G, but Bakken moving west. Plant proposed near Great Falls was going to use City of GF water reservation. Would have used almost all of City reservation. Paper products demand has fallen off – one mill in Townsend.

New hydro projects less likely than upgrades and retooling (i.e., Rainbow and Turnbull). Gibson and Clark Canyon have planned upgrades. Can get new water right because non-consumptive. Higher the head, the more generation.

DATA GAPS (none specifically noted by presenter)

Some additional information was exchanged through question and answer sessions with the presenters which is not summarized here. Relevant aspects were incorporated into summary materials.

MUNICIPAL/DOMESTIC

WHAT’S WORKING WELL Optimize and maintain existing water rights

Can acquire water rights or shares; also annexation requirements (or pay a fee)

System loss detection and repair

Planning is good rather than trying to fix later.

14 municipalities have water reservations

Well exemption – proposed rules out (comment by 9/19); works well in rural settings

Grey area – rainwater harvesting

OVERSUPPLY

C-3 | P a g e

Spring flooding; full storage is good; beginning of growth planning cycle

Abundant aquifer area

SHORTAGE Droughts, fires, winter freezing, restricted or unavailable storage, basin closures

Drought, increased demand – can lower water table

PROJECTIONS Conservation specialist soon to be hired in Bozeman

Climate change adjustments – Bozeman did models with and without climate change (reference their projections?)

Real time water use data – good for leak detection too

Funding needs? Prioritization of $$ (?)

Redundancy of supply/increased storage

Reuse/Purple pipe

See Bozeman info on website and handout

DATA GAPS Wastewater reuse – e.g. Bozeman discharges to East Gallatin; EPA going toward land application and reuse. If required treatment, no water right change needed. Probably will be decided through case law. Lagoons have had to be ....

Lack of good estimates of available supply and existing legal demands for basins

Lack of groundwater details (supply, timing)

Some additional information was exchanged through question and answer sessions with the presenters which is not summarized here. Relevant aspects were incorporated into summary materials.

RECREATION/TOURISM

WHAT’S WORKING WELL Resources in good form

OVERSUPPLY Flooding, high storage in reservoirs (limit water in rivers); safety concerns. All seasonally based.

SHORTAGE Low flows can result in fishing closures (e.g. Blackfoot closed)

2012 recreation surveys; need more lake and river boat access

PROJECTIONS

C-4 | P a g e

16% of Americans went fishing; 29% fish or hunt; 38% of (US) boating trips include fishing

Newest participants in fishing are women and youth.

Non-res license purchases increased 5%

MA – drop in use numbers in 2011 was partially due to high water and not being able to go

84% of anglers participate in other activities.

Water access is top need (2012 survey of land managers)

2010-2030 percent pop change – 10-20% projected growth (more by county on audio)

12% total pop increase by 2030. = more demand for water.

DATA GAPS Recreation is hard to track, especially non-register data. Would help to correlate growth with user demand or preferences.

Some additional information was exchanged through question and answer sessions with the presenters which is not summarized here. Relevant aspects were incorporated into summary materials.

ADDITIONAL BASELINE INFORMATION FROM INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC MEETINGS This is grouped by topic, rather than displayed by location. Not all entries closely match the headings under which they were provided. All providers of information in this category provided their contact information for follow-up if desired, except for the entries in italics.

WHAT'S WORKING WELL - Basin closures work well. They spur innovation in water management, and make Montana a national leader in managing a limited resource wisely.

- State water law if adjudicated and enforced

- Inefficient water use in the upper Big Hole; sustains the rest of the River system

- No new appropriations

- No Prioritization of beneficial uses - all are equally important

- Prior appropriation doctrine - 1st in time, 1st in right (critical to upholding the work of the water court)

- Comprehensive, locally based, flexible management systems developed by district courts and water commissioners like in Gallatin County and watershed groups like Blackfoot Challenge and Big Hole Jefferson River drought plans.

- Need to continue (better) treat both ground and surface water as parts of a combined resource - need joint management working together to address concerns, e.g., drought management plans

C-5 | P a g e

- The system of "first in time, first in right"

- Water commissioner on Upper Teton, so all users "play by the rules"

- Since water is priceless as a commodity, we need to store as much as possible for the low water times It could be used for recreation, fisheries, etc.

- No change to any storage of water already in place.

- Water rights are property which can be sold/severed from the place

- Having input as general public

OVERSUPPLIES - Don't assume high spring flows are surplus until biologists determine the magnitude, duration, and frequency of high flows needed for healthy rivers.

- Water running over the border - we need to slow it down and use it many times

- Cloudbursts and flashflood from rapid melt or storm cells - could be diverted into catchments

- In cases that are unregulated, like ponds - groundwater ponds are consuming our most valuable resource, often just for decoration.

- No oversupply anywhere, anytime. We have a relatively fixed baseline amount to allocate among all beneficial uses. A plan needs to be developed to allow for re-allocation of short term oversupply (spring flood, heavy rains). Storage in a reservoir, water banking/trading, instream flow, blow off on irrigation ditches. When oversupplies exist, the plan designates alternative options for allocation of that water.

- Healthy watersheds absorb excess water- floodplain, wetlands, stream corridors, filter it and support groundwater storage.

- High water years during peak flow run-off - sometimes flooding

- Need to get people and structures out of floodplains. Stop federal flood insurance.

- None

- Sun River - spring runoff

- No storage leads to a constant flow on the Teton River for El Dorado water right

- From pivot irrigation efficiency - Could be utilized in fisheries, additional irrigation and to assure downstream water users have water for their use.

- Too much for recreation vs. domestic use

SHORTAGES - High flows for river habitat maintenance on Marias and other regulated rivers. Rivers need a flood at least every 10 years, and bankfull flows every 2 years. Most instream flow rights are not monitored or enforced.

C-6 | P a g e

- Summer low water flows

- September, August, July

- Too little for fish and wildlife, especially on tributary streams where there are no user groups or are decreed.

- All beneficial uses claim they aren't getting all they need. When supplies are low, there has to be a plan for re- allocating water (rationing). Some of this is already in place - District Court and water commissioners, odd-even lawn watering, late summer-winter instream flow (Big Hole/Jefferson).

- Instream; too numerous to mention all, e.g., Sun, Teton, Prickly Pear, Tenmile, Dearborn, Big Hole, Jefferson, Boulder, Deep Creek (Townsend), Lower Gallatin. For aquatic life/"ecosystem services", recreation, usually after spring runoff through rest of hydrologic year.

- Most tributaries in the plains have less water in mid-summer to fall. Only 1st or 2nd water right holders on the upstream have water throughout the irrigation season

- Sun River - (Greenfields Irrigation District) fall irrigation

- Teton River at confluence to Missouri

- Downstream users of Teton often are without water even though (they are?) senior water rights owners, due to upstream more efficient use of water through pivots and less wastewater returned to stream

- Sun River drainage needs more off-stream storage!

- It seems some Fairfield people don't have enough water at times

PROJECTIONS Note that many of the entries below actually identify desired projections, rather than available ones.

- Habitat disruptions caused by "efficiency upgrades", to ditches/canals. Negative effects on habitat (predators, grouse, etc.)

- Possible development of a water (?)

- Climate change/USGS runoff data in relation to use dates

- Coordination of plans for urban water supplies with other uses. (they don't exist in a vacuum.)

- Climate change projections affecting water supplies from high country federal lands. (state gov't, USFS, U of M Forest School).

- Bureau of Mines - Tom Michalek, Steve Custer (MSU), Gallatin local water quality district well logs, irrigation district records.

- Until the DNRC and Water Court have finished adjudicating the water rights in the state, we won't know if there are any waters available in the various basins. Expansion from 1980s has caused serious problems

- Invasive aquatic species - Eurasion water milfoil, zebra mussels

C-7 | P a g e

- Continued surveillance of runoff and waste water remains clean and is quality for downstream use

- Water quality - no mention of pollution levels

- The August/September 2013 issue of Planning, the national magazine of the American Planning Association, contains two articles related to trends in municipal water use. Combined, the good news is that per capita water consumption in the West has dropped significantly, and the bad news that droughts in the West put water supplies at ever greater risks. APA members can access the articles at http://www.planning.org/planning/2013/aug/waterdemand.htm; others can obtain from their library.

DATA GAPS - The process needs a decision support system (DSS) that maps water availability by stream reach, including tributaries, under different management scenarios. See examples from Colorado, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Massachusetts - all used different methods. Need quantification of water diversions and return flows.

- measurement, measurement, measurement - go Mike Roberts and USGS!

- Uses of water via urban sprawl and development in riparian zones, including exempt uses of water

- Little information is available on total water quantity within the state when groundwater and surface water are considered

- Modeling for increased demand and decreasing supply.

- Can we get an estimate of the total average streamflow from gauging station data for each watershed? Can we add up the total amount claimed by senior water right holders in each watershed? By subtracting, how much is left for junior water right holders? Can we find surplus or shortages that way? For surface water.

- We really have little data on actual quantity of groundwater or effects of current use on aquifer. How can we allocate water if we don't know how much we have? - Impacts on water resources in general in conversion of flood to sprinkler

- Future demands from stock/domestic wells through "exempt well" permits

- Need to address within basin closure over-allocation and impacts to existing rights

- Better planning for continued long-term gauges at more critical locations.

- "Real" rights versus "paper" rights in basin (actual versus claimed water use) and wasted water

- Better characterization of groundwater hydrology in areas of high population density

- Ensuring water availability across the state for ag, industry, and recreation

- Develop a water solution for expanding residential development over the long term

- Encourage innovative water use practices for all users

- Making measurement of streams a priority. Fund USGS gauging stations for full year of data collection

- Link between groundwater and surface water

C-8 | P a g e

- Need for public education beyond agriculture and some serious thought to use of grey water as well as water savings in urban areas and in the expanding development areas. Program s to promote efficiency such as new water saving toilets, underground sprinkler systems for lawns, etc.

- Data on measurement

- Study further measurement of surface water and groundwater

COUNCIL AND PUBLIC MEETING GROUP "TOP THREE" ISSUES, BY LOCATION This compilation lists the "top three" group issues from the Council's Kickoff meeting, as well as the public meetings held in Great Falls, Conrad, Helena, Bozeman, and Dillon, respectively, from September 30 to October 9.

COUNCIL KICKOFF MEETING - SEPTEMBER 5-6 - THREE FORKS

TABLE 1: 1. Limited water supply; can't create new water.

2. Water banking - create certainty in specific areas.

3. Water right enforcement to create more certainty.

TABLE 2: 1. What water is available, when? Need to know.

2. Can water policy be a bit more flexible? Need flexibility in how move water around.

3. New system to measure surface water for better idea of what's really going on and the ability to look at new storage - capacity of what we have, retrofit?

TABLE 3: goal: improve and guide future

1. maintain this work by funding local basin user groups - provide them with document to market.

2. irrigation - growth projections and change in methods - effect on gw as source and related to recharge

3.1. surface water storage role in irrigation?

3.2. Add water quantity and quality data from non-traditional groups; include local knowledge and information (may need data quality evaluation); make available for public access - e.g. FWP, DEQ, DNRC information that people normally don't know about.

TABLE 4: 1. Everything is connected - need better understanding of how uses affect others.

2. There is an incomplete understanding of the water cycle, given human influences (e.g., wastewater discharge, sump pump issue at Malmstrom, etc.)

C-9 | P a g e

3.1. We need a water balance - how much is there? Conditions are difficult to determine (e.g. does the shift from agricultural uses to housing use more water or less?

3.2. Water availability and use will change as climate changes

TABLE 5: 1. There is a need to balance instream flows with agriculture, especially in dry years, and deal with associated challenges.

2. There is an opportunity to increase storage of high spring flows. We should plan on an earlier snowmelt. Reservoirs, groundwater recharge, beaver dams, wetlands, and forest watersheds with proper stocking can all help take advantage of high flow periods.

3. Need to balance surface water and groundwater uses (i.e., conjunctive management). For example, canals can help create a groundwater reservoir. There is a connection - we should recognize it and use it.

GREAT FALLS PUBLIC MEETING- SEPTEMBER 30

TABLE 1: 1. Water storage

2. State needs stronger methods and ability for setbacks and tougher enforcement with DEQ to have more power to protect water quality.

3. Protecting points of diversion related to avulsion.

TABLE 2: 1. Protect and maintain prior appropriation doctrine

2. Utilize high water for future growth (storage on or off stream)

3. Infrastructure improvements for all water users.

TABLE 3: 1. Need for more information on quality and quantity and their relationships.

2. Ensure industrial uses are continued assuming quality and quantity requirements are met

3. Offstream storage

TABLE 4: 1. More water storage

2. Finish the adjudication and implement

3. Improve ability to improve cooperation that will facilitate improved overall efficiency

TABLE 5: 1. Continue to improve water conservation measures (pivots, pipelines, measurement devices)

C-10 | P a g e

2. Ability to store high spring flows - structural, or...

3. Worry of losing portion of water right as become more efficient.

CONRAD PUBLIC MEETING- OCTOBER 1

TABLE 1: 1. Capitalize on high spring flows - natural storage (cost effective?) - address likely increased demand

2. control and prevention of invasive aquatic species (all users) - dangerous if gets out of hand

3. Out of state, downstream calls for water, increased demands, tribal demands, international demands - how to accommodate

TABLE 2: 1. Tribal Reserved water - what volumes they end up with and how will it be used - mitigation (Blackfeet)

2. Water supply/availability - opportunities; small watershed, so need more storage

3. Funding for water efficiency and conservation project - agricultural

TABLE 3: 1. Storage - all kinds; off-stream, expand existing, wetlands - biggest question is cost

2. Infrastructure improvements - measuring devices, storage/canal infrastructure - both funding and implementation

3. Adjudication complete and enforce rigorously.

Other - downstream demands

HELENA PUBLIC MEETING- OCTOBER 2

TABLE 1: 1. Utilization of stored water such as in Tiber reservoir and the rest of the dams in state, including increased storage capacity on or off river.

2. Protecting senior water users from groundwater depletions from exempt wells exemption (35/10)

3. Increased information about water resources - accountability and measuring use, including future use and supply.

TABLE 2: 1. Ensure water availability across state for ag, industry, recreation and municipalities.

2. Cooperation and communication among stakeholders using good information - need more; good information helps advance cooperation. (e.g. benefits of measuring devices on 3 big canals on Jefferson system and related diversion reductions)

3. Future changes in hydrology due to climate change/variability; changes in timing and availability of water.

C-11 | P a g e

BOZEMAN PUBLIC MEETING- OCTOBER 8

TABLE 1: 1. Ensure legal protections for perpetuation of agricultural economies and water use.

2. Conservation enhancements to promote water storage in natural ecosystems - all users can be involved (industrial, hydro, recreation, etc.). Allows water to stay in system longer.

3. Climate modeling and water supply analysis would help how current uses will look in future.

TABLE 2: 1. Water Plan should include accurate, conservative assessment of water use - include climate change, and water adjudication process.

2. Goal of Plan should be to achieve/maintain instream flows in our rivers.

3. Provide education and incentives to reduce water use and tighten up on basin closure well exemptions. Embrace municipalities as partners in conservation efforts.

TABLE 3: 1. Lots of agencies and organizations collecting data, but not centralized. Could bring data players to table and facilitate more effective dialogue. Can one entity get access to (and evaluate) all the data? Databases need to talk to each other.

2. Water quality/quantity - preservation of watershed capability to provide clean water. Minimum streamflows also quality related - need to know about flow to talk about TMDLs.

3. Preserve water supply from forested lands; and consider wastewater reuse as component of future supply.

TABLE 4: 1. Data - Need consistent and credible data of water resources - use, location, historic use. Need expertise to put it to good use. Ensure availability of data to other users and public. No agency hoarding!

2. Consumptive use impacts downstream and to other uses - plan for more water marketing.

3. Water quality/ quantity disconnect - treat equally.

DILLON PUBLIC MEETING- OCTOBER 9

TABLE 1: 1. Accelerate adjudication process.

2. Off-stream storage specifically for Big Hole river - could help downstream systems.

3. Instream enhancement through cooperation of water users across state. Incentivize voluntary participation.

TABLE 2 1. Need storage of high spring flows in Big Hole; traditional as well as storage of surface water in subsurface aquifers.

C-12 | P a g e

2. Improve forest health and management in watersheds and mitigate effects of forest fires and oversupply of fuels.

3. Improve stream gauging system; improve sharing between agencies and public access to data. In part to help determine effects of return flows to stream; help better manage water.

TABLE 3 1. Adjudication process - need to ensure special interest groups don't slow down process or create unnecessary fees on water users. (e.g., TU involvement, and landowners can't afford to fight).

2. Water marketing and tie between rights and land - value of water will increase so much that can't afford to keep land in family. Threat to family farms.

3. Senior surface water rights need to be protected from new groundwater wells. (includes exempt wells and others)

TABLE 5 1. Funding of the adjudication process - need earmarked revenues and oversight. Streamline the process, develop timelines that are met. "Litigious individuals and greedy lawyers"

2. Use of ESA as weapon to change land and water use and impact on Montana Water use. Eminent domain, public trust, and downstream demands threaten Montana water law.

3. Climate change affect on period of use.

3a. Increasing Storage - off-season and offstream and groundwater aquifer recharge. (ID using existing irrigation infrastructure to recharge in off-season.)

TABLE 6 1. Need information about transferring water rights in estate settlements and sales of property.

2. Will early water rights be sustainable - 1865.

3. How will water rights be affect by tribal claims?

COUNCIL AND PUBLIC MEETING RAW (NON-PRIORITIZED) GROUP ISSUES The issues below were those the groups listed, that either did or did not get reported out in the Group's "top three". They may also have been morphed into a broader topic reported in the group's top three, above. These are reported verbatim, as there was no opportunity outside the group at the table to further clarify.

COUNCIL KICKOFF MEETING Groups 1 and 4 did not provide their issue forms, so their raw group issues are not listed below. Their top three issues were reported at the meeting, however, so are included in Appendix A and in the Issues Summary.

GROUP 2 - Water supply is finite and changing (timing)

C-13 | P a g e

- Technology is changing (GMOs, irrigation, etc.)

- Need numbers - water measurements (hard data

- More water commissioners?

- There are also outside influences (climate or disasters - e.g., hailstorm)

GROUP 3: - Growth Projections

- Water storage

- Habitat preservation

- Irrigation - will there be resistance?

- small wells

- Date from non-USGS/BOM

- Common interests, cooperation, user groups

- Additional groundwater data

- Handling of conversion of agricultural rights to municipal

- Marketing ideas/education - brand scope with personal touch

GROUP 5: - Need to balance agricultural irrigation water with instream needs

- Water rights transfers should consider more than volume of flow

- After adjudication, many will have less water

- Balance among uses in dry years

- The Blackfoot Compact (met? can't read writing) a huge reduction; perhaps wastewater reuse?

- Need to capture high spring flows

- Fire control policies can affect water yield, quality, and timing

- One size doesn't fit all; local improvements can meet local conditions, and management must recognize these differences

GREAT FALLS PUBLIC MEETING

TABLE 1 - Water storage

C-14 | P a g e

- Water allocation for senior water rights

- Water issues to be discussed in Blackfeet Compact for water in Tiber dam re: a water right change process and reallocation

- Reservations need to have a long-term contract (with?) the federal government

- Use of temporary water rights

- Points of diversion on the Marias River has changed

- What will a simple procedure be to enforce water rights when all water has been adjudicated?

- Conservation districts wanted a setback and were not allowed with return flow (contaminants?)

- Tougher enforcement (and need?) to hae more power to protect quality of water - consider it a major issue

Jim Beck summary of Table 1 Dialogue: Water storage below Great Falls dams; water allocation issues; contract water study (how much water), education on ability to utilize contract water; Look at exchange system to use contract water above storage; Look at exchange - off reservation use during compact negotiation; Concern with out of state interests looking to export water; Extend reservation development past 2025; Enforcement procedures that are simple and inexpensive; Setbacks to improve water quality; Better enforcement of point source pollution; let DEQ do their job.

TABLE 2 - Protect and maintain prior appropriation doctrine

- Future water for growth - including municipal - utilize high water storage

- Improve infrastructure for agriculture and municipalities

- Concern for protecting current water use

TABLE 3 - Possible industrial supply issues with demands for process. Where does it come from?

- Lack of measurement of water use - Need information to compare data. Stream gauges are being phased out. Who pays and why?

- Exempt wells are an issue in subdivisions. What size is reasonable?

- Know the relationship between groundwater and surface water better. Who is responsible for monitoring?

- The quality of water and pollution factors

- Make sure that all industrial uses are continued as long as water quality is met

- Irrigation - measure very closely. More off stream storage would be an answer to the competition

- Information not readily available to the public

C-15 | P a g e

- Quality/Quantity

- Off stream storage

TABLE 4 - Improving amount of water storage, especially spring runoff for use later for use and stream flows

- Concern of water banking raising price of water, especially for agriculture

- Irrigation needs to be thoroughly evaluated, pros and cons, and long term effects on uses

- Water laws need to be looked at to improve better cooperation and win-win/outcomes

- Are we truly understanding the changes and impact going from flood to sprinkler, and agriculture to residential?

- Adjudication completion and real enforcement

- Not enough monitoring on surface water

- Need a means for improving infrastructure

TABLE 5 - Water conservation measures/pivots, pipelines, measurement

- Keep water in the state as beneficial use

- Complete water right compacts that are outstanding

- Storage of high spring flows

- Worry of losing a portion of your water rights as you become more efficient

CONRAD PUBLIC MEETING

TABLE 1 - Water commissioners would be useful

- Hope that senior water rights and property rights are respected

- Spring flooding - Sun River (disaster?) issues

- Late-year shortages

- More storage is needed to prevent spring flooding - Sun River, Teton

- Downstream user calling for water (e.g., Corps of Engineers)

- Funding for storage, efficiency, conservation

- Quality of water - invasive aquatic plant and animals - prevention and control needs to be beter funded

- Determination of waste and beneficial use and who determines

C-16 | P a g e

TABLE 2 - Eminent domain

- Supply - storage

- Funding for conservation and efficiency

Jim Beck summary of Table 2 Dialogue: Eminent domain of water rights; Tribal water (use of water on reservation (OK), concern with sale of water from Tiber Reservoir, claiming an earlier priority for Tribe); Supply issues, possible storage sites (funding for efficiencies, conservation measures to save irrigation water); 4 Horn Reservoir expansion (Badger Creek) and distribution of water among several streams

TABLE 3 - Storage - who pays? DNRC process difficult. Needed - where/what kind. No only off-stream

- Adjudication and enforcement needed

- Efficiencies/water measurement devices

- Surface/Groundwater depletion/connection

- Conversion to sprinkler and return flow issues

- Infrastructure improvements - who pays? partnerships; local/state/fed/NGO

HELENA PUBLIC MEETING

TABLE 1 - Tiber reservoir water not being utilized appropriately, belief that it's been abandoned, other potential lost water rights (and other dams).

- More storage, for more irrigated acres, off or on stream, concern with potential evaporation, e.g. Tiber and Fort Peck - including management

- Protect prior appropriation

- Small well exemption - cumulative effect

- climate change - stream flows, runoff, etc.

- water measurement, must have measurements to understand, measuring diversions

- Coordination between owners/operators of storage.

- Understanding the "finiteness" of ground and surface water, and sustainable use.

- Cost of water right acquisition/change of use.

- Growing municipalities/population and suburbanization, general development

- Quality of water

C-17 | P a g e

TABLE 2 - Cooperation and communication between water rtights holders (stakeholders)

- DNRC water rights process needs to improve

- Good information - measuring devices and feedback to communities

- Future changes in hydrology due to climate change/variability - changes in timing and availability

- Ensuring water availability across the state for agriculture, industry, recreation, and municipality

- Encourage innovative water use solutions

- Develop a solution for residential development, i.e., exempt wells

- Complete the adjudication

- Consider groundwater recharge for storage (ASR)

- Better understanding of groundwater flow

- Off stream storage on tributaries

- Jim Beck summary of Table 2 dialogue: Cooperation and communication among water right holders is a good way to make the best use of water; Measuring devices help to take arguments out of water use; Communication was begun through watershed group with door-to-door efforts; Future changes in hydrology may change amount and timing of water; Water availability in general across state for ad, industry, recreation, and municipal; Plan for residential water use in the future; Encourage innovative use of water; Exempt right to be reviewed to show lack of impact or mitigation; Expedite the water adjudication program; Water marketing for small users?

BOZEMAN PUBLIC MEETING

TABLE 1 - Recreational uses of water - (allocate?) water for recreational and fisheries uses

- Agricultural uses of water - Water measuring devices - legal protections need to be implemented to assure agricultural uses

- Water storage to maintain base flows and (base?) uses for all the users (industrial/agricultural/municipal).

- Hydropower users - water availability for power production and hydro is a major water user though their rights are very young.

- Climate modeling and water supply with current and project uses from a planning perspective (Kansas example) - soil health enhancement for water storage/offstream storage (?)

- Conservation enhancement that promote water storage within natural ecosystems.

TABLE 2 - Getting a really accurate and conservative assessment of future water availability. Use a conservative approach in projection (in relation to climate variability)

C-18 | P a g e

- Water adjudication needs to be completed/expedited.

- Document the inter-relationships between surface and groundwater

- No more exempt wells for certain purposes - ponds, waterfalls, decorative, front lawn recreation.

- Encouraging xeriscape development; potentially offering incentives for landowner

- State water plan should include water quality issues also

- Specific actions that enable water users to conserve water - using science and irrigation (Big Hole irrigation example)

- State continue to educate on water marketing, water leasing, etc.

- Work with municipalities to develop conservation strategies - expand and promote with municipalities that already are doing some conservation

- Stormwater

- Grey water/purple water

- Have instream flows as a goal within the state plan

Jim Beck's summary of Table 2 discussion: Estimate of future water use, especially in light of climate change. Use a worst case over 20 years; Adjudication needs to be completed to understand water use and facilitate changes o water; Protecting instream flows by prioritizing instream use; Understand/Document relationship between groundwater and surface water; Limit exempt wells (permit) for some purposes; Requiring new subdivisions to xeriscape; Consider water quality along with water quantity; Increased water enforcement of water rights/water use; Voluntary conservation initiatives - Educate people concerning better use and conservation; Continue with state education on water use and water savings - More educational activities by joint government agencies, maybe with other entities; Awareness of water savings in the municipal setting (sod farms to supply lower water use grass)

TABLE 3 - Water Use Efficiency - usage of water, conservation, recharge, allocation short term high flows. Irrigated acreages. More water use not going back to recharging aquifer. Crop properties, ET rates. Usage vs. recharge. Water budget per watershed.

- Water Quantity/Quality - TMDL, preservation, wastewater, recycle. DEQ vision; DNRC vision; NCAT. At base flow what are the impacts of contaminants? Posing futuristic perspective to growth. Wastewater. TMDL - Preservation, coordination, watershed protection.

- Data - Ground/Surface water interchange, data quality and quantity, communicated data, NRCS, FS, watershed council. Funding. MBMG/GWIP. Substantial database. Funding. Data gaps?

- Land Use Planning - Industry, residential expansion vs. agriculture. Industry uses impacting quality. Frac'ing water user on rocky mountain front; expansions in subdivisions.

C-19 | P a g e

- Water Supply and Wastewater - recycling, deficit, increasing supply. Reservoir possibilities capturing flood discharge. Subdivision planning - drawdowns cause neighboring impacts; what happens? Wastewater

- Watershed Protection - source of water. Better preserving the water source.

TABLE 4 - Consumptive use - Recharge

- Analysis of Use - Policies should be based on credible data

- Downstream demands

- efficiency upgrades (conversion to pivots)/recharge

- Historical data and levels

- what types of aquifers are we dealing with for groundwater (confined vs. open aquifers)?

- Limit analysis to factual data, credible data

- Importance of baseline data. Coordination of efforts between agencies. Sharing of data.

- Water accounting, budgeting, mapping of use (ditches/canals)

- Water quality

- Instream flows

- Identify rights that are not being used.

- Have expertise to deal with the data

- Mitigation

- Deal with over-allocated water

DILLON PUBLIC MEETING

TABLE 1 - Instream flow management with cooperation of watershed and conservation groups.

- Offstream storage, specifically for the Big Hole, holding on to early flows

- Floodplain law enforcement - site specific

- Adjudication process speeded up on upper basin rivers - proper funding from the Legislature

- Climate change and future water supply

TABLE 2 - Address the irrigated pasture clarification issue

C-20 | P a g e

- Big (fires too) because of consistent rainfall (?)4

- Irrigation tactics. Return flows lessened by irrigation technology. Also divert less water. Compensate so farmers don't lose water rights from more efficient irrigation.

- Improve water gauging stations; improve state sharing of water data.

- Recreation "open spaces" not connected to agricultural benefits of open land. Open spaces are due in large (most) part to irrigation, agriculture. Without agricultural management, tourists wouldn't have the scenery.

- Accounting for and protecting sub-irrigation on edges of streams and (water surfacing?)

- New streams being built from bringing groundwater to the surface. More information on groundwater. Developing groundwater and the effect downstream.

- Diverting high water into storage solutions. Storage options on Big Hole. Catch high water form Big Hole. Funding options for storage solutions? Public relations - (awareness, to crowdsource) the solution. Hydro opportunity?

- Beaverhead winter flow management plan. Balance management with Corps of Engineers.

- Cloud seeding in Idaho. Power companies that benefit from seeding. Taking our water.

- Improve watershed. Mitigate fire risks in forests to avoid hydrophobic soil. Age diversity.

TABLE 3 - Use date/period of use for water rights, in relation to climate change

- Not to sever water rights from the land - leasing vs. separating; private property rights?

- Moving water out of state

- Value of water, water marketing; as value of water increased, creates threat to family farms. Estate taxes increase with increased land/water value. Not selling water right if it has an adverse effect on other landowners??

- Allowing special interest groups to object (have a say) in the adjudication process.

(no Table 4, as several attendees left at break)

TABLE 5 - Timing of water right. Period of Use. Changing seasons.

- Funding (earmarked and oversight) of adjudication - streamlining processes and develop timelines that are met.

- Storage - offstream and groundwater - augment groundwater storage, mitigation - run canals off season - irrigate off season.

- Vegetative manipulation and water budget (logging, fire) - too many trees.

- Use of ESA as a weapon to change land and water use; trumps state law.

4 This doesn't make sense; if someone from that group can clarify, please do.

C-21 | P a g e

- Eminent Doman - downstream uses - commerce

- Domestic use - National Federal Reservation Act. Be careful about allowing Public Trust Doctrine to fracture Montana water law doctrine!

Jim Beck summary of Table 5 issues: Period of use change with climate change making earlier/later period appropriate; Finish adjudication in Montana with specific funding to accelerate the task with oversight; Toughen the adjudication system to cut out delays, hold people to schedules; Off-stream and groundwater storage using recharge via ditch operation or hybrid irrigation methods w/protection for converting back and forth; Manage forest to lessen the use by excess tree cover; Controls on water banking; Eminent Domain may be used to supply water for barge traffic or large cities.

TABLE 6 - Eminent domain for the water rights

- Early water rights

- Early Native American rights

- Transferring water rights in estate settlements

- Early storage collection in the spring

INDIVIDUAL INPUT ASSOCIATED WITH MEETINGS Some of these topics were covered in public meetings, and attendees provided them again for emphasis. Others were provided because attendees felt their group results were not representative of their interests. Some was provided by people unable to attend the public meetings.

ASSOCIATED WITH COUNCIL KICKOFF MEETING - Respect the historic rights utterly.

- Storage optimization is likely the only option for "adding" water.

- Add to true "net" effect understanding of leaks, well/septic systems, infiltration, and the like.

- Near-urban circumstances are different than rural, and require a different approach.

- Natural streamflow regimes are greatly altered in many places, resulting in adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and riparian vegetation. But we don't know the degree of alteration for individual stream reaches, which we need for planning purposes.

- Water planning in a sense is land use planning. Make the connections between people's behavior and impacts on water supply.

- Ask the question how can development/growth meet future water supplies, not just how water supplies can meet future growth. Conservation should be included as a strong perspective.

ASSOCIATED WITH GREAT FALLS PUBLIC MEETING

C-22 | P a g e

- The general system of water rights works good but it is not flexible enough in these ever changing times.

- We really need lots more enforcement AND it should not have to come to light from only written complaints. Most water right holders I have met do not like to turn in their neighbors even if there is really bad "stealing" of water going on. If DNRC knows of a water right violation they should be able to do something about it.

- Adjudication needs to be completed ASAP. This drawn out process is having long-term negative effects on people trying to work together to resolve complex water issues.

- Water conservation project should be rewarded not punished as is the current water rights system. If someone saves water they should be able to keep that water right and allow it to remain in the river.

- Water storage always sounds great but who is going to pay for the installation and the long-term maintenance? There is already a huge backlog of maintenance on irrigation infrastructure without adding more. And there is already a state water storage study that does not show many good/cost-effective sites remaining.

- Need more monitoring of stream and irrigation diversions. Monitoring is a good way to make sure people are being honest of what water is going where. Do not need all USGS sites but we do need lots more sites that are considered reliable.

- Proactive drought management by state and federal agencies needs to be a priority for proactive on-the-ground water conservation projects. Why do we need to always talk about drought? Let's do something about it. Should be a regular review of state and federal resources that can help us find real water savings since we can make any more new water.

- Tie between GW and SW needs to be cleared up and be available for decision makers. Why do we allow new subdivisions to go in when there is already major water shortages in certain areas. If the desire for growth is there, they need to acquire existing water rights. General public is too poor to find out the real facts on potential impacts of new GW projects.

- Teamwork needs to be rewarded. If I find a group of people willing to work together to share water, they have to fight the system of even potential loos their water right because they did not use all of their water.

- Efficiency upgrades and conservation measures with use of water

- Water banking

- Both in and off-stream storage

- Education regarding excess wter with use of pivot irrigation vs flood irrigation available for other use.

- Montanans must be better stewards of our water or downstream states and users could take this scarce resource (needed?) in our semi-arid region.

- Measurement of water quality and reporting on a regular basis to the public

- Want to know the impact of water needs from oil industry on Montana's supply

C-23 | P a g e

- Would like to see more than water rights owners be involved in Montana's water systems

- Worry about PPL having tons or rights to our water when citizens don't and can be trampled by big money and businesses

Participant Note: Had mine employee ramrod her desires for use of water into (group) priorities without agreement of group participants.

- Be in control of Montana water to out of state uses and users. Don't sell our rights to the water. Keep ability to control it.

- Legislatively change "abandoned" water rights. Water rights belong to the land no matter what when purchased. I live in town; is it fair to take my property rights as for the producer when no all rights are used?

- Issue of conserving water also punishes landowner because they didn't use all the rights

- Can we agree that we have a finite supply of both surface and groundwater.

- What are the projections for pivot use into the future?

- What is the biggest benefit to society in the way of food. Is it better if we transport water in order to produce more grains, vegetables and fruits? Or is it better to produce livestock?

- What is the tipping point for water as a commodity? When does it become profitable to sell water as a commodity instead of using it for agriculture.

- How much groundwater do we have available and when do we turn off the spigot? As opposed to over (appropriating) it?

- What if anything are water users willing to sacrifice? And what is the cost.

ASSOCIATED WITH CONRAD MEETING - Storage of high spring flows

- Defining waste issues and providing some teeth in statute to control

- Neighbors infringing on neighbors in the use of groundwater wells

ASSOCIATED WITH HELENA MEETING - Availability of water for development in urbanizing areas

- The state of Montana should challenge the Bureau of Reclamation's claimed water right. Tiber was commissioned in the late 40s and finished and filled in the mid-1950s. It was built to irrigate over 1 million acres. It currently irrigates less acres than the dam flooded in the mid 50s. 10,000 acres would be developed if this illegally tied up water were released.

- Prior appropriation doctrine

C-24 | P a g e

- Predicted changes with climate change. How will this affect water supply and hydrology? Need to be proactive to address future water needs - but be realistic (not "pie-in-the-sky" growth and development)

- Instream flow protection for aquatic life/ecological processes

- "Exempt wells" - need to be brought into water rights "scheme" and need to be "in line" for in-time rights like other rights

- Get through water rights adjudication process - now!

ASSOCIATED WITH BOZEMAN MEETING - Data collection, analysis and projection (i.e., climate change modeling of demand vs. supply)

- Encouraging conservation measures for water storage and increased funding for such (i.e. soil health)

- ensuring clean and abundant water for all life forms in Montana (i.e., discouraging tracking). Develop agriculture, tourism, and conservation, rather than industry.

- Encourage ground-up involvement, not top-down.

- Federal lands along the Continental Divide are the headwaters of the headwaters. What happens there affects water supply all the way downstream. Take a close look at management practices on these lands and state/federal coordination on watershed protection issues. Can management proctices on these lands increase water supply/stabilize water supply, store water in snowpack, wetlands or riparian flood plains, groundwater. How does climate change affect the water supply from these lands? USFS has done some work on climate change projection NEEDED - close coordination between state/fed/local on management of watershed.

- Changing land uses. We can't always predict what needs changing land uses bring or effects on supply and demand for water. Bozeman is a high growth areas where the competition among uses is likely to be felt early on. We have to be ready to be able to adapt quickly to changing needs/changing allocations of water among beneficial uses. The current systems are cumbersome at best - DNRC change of use, water banking, instream flows, fracking needs, temporary leasing, exempt wells in closed basins. Needed - better, streamlined procedures that are flexible and fair.

- Wastewater. There is no place for waste water. It is a key part of future water supply. Define it and threat it as such. Discharging of groundwater pumping to lower the water table for development, stormwater drainage, sewage treatment plant discharge, discharge of fracking water - we can't do that anymore. The goal is to keep the water we have in the system as snow, wetland floodplain groundwater or in use as long as possible within the watershed. Retain it filter and reuse it. Plan discharge to benefit other uses within the watershed.

- The basic dilemma - US sate government own most of our watershed and control supply. Irrigators own most of the senior water rights. Municipalities believe they should have priority over other use. Industry and commerce tout that they need unlimited water to create jobs. Fish and Game, environmentalist and recreationists demand instream flows to preserve habitat.

- Aim for the ability to adapt to seasonal short and long term climate change supply variations. Remember water is linked to food. Water is linked to energy. Hydropower, small scale hydro, geothermal, biofuel, (algae production tanks), growing camelina or corn for ethanol/jet fuel, fracking water, coal slurry. See diagram of Klundborg,

C-25 | P a g e

Denmark. Water carries heat for heating and cooling. Water carries sludge for fertilizer. Water can alos carry reclaimable chemicals - fracking. Remember water is linked to food. Ag - the process of capturing solar energy by the biological processes of plants and animals. That can be done locally anywhere there is sunshine. Even in urban areas. Large scale ag needs lots of water, but can afford the economies of scale to re=use it as part of a closed system. See diagram from Successful Farming. (Referenced diagrams are provided at end of document.)( Commenter provided personal background information - BS Forestry UofM'68. Rural route mail carrier - Gallatin Valley 1980-2004. watched the housing boom and attendant water problems up close; visioning process, Gallatin Valley Tomorrow - 1 yr - Ag and Env & Economic Devel Committee; rancher, homesteader, irrigator; participated in lots of planning and zoning initiatives since 1989 in Gallatin Valley; Board member AGAI, Great Gallatin Watershed Council; Former Board member READ, Work forst training Inc.; AERO, MT Environmental Education Association.)

- consumptive use/recharge

- analysis of use - irrigation and type of irrigation; historical changes, practices

- Downstream demands - state/federal

- efficiency upgrades - recharge effects

- Historical data and levels - Facts

- Types of aquifers - effects by pumpings (unconfined/confined)

- Foundation of analysis = factual data - current/historical; coordination between agencies

- Water quality from Water use

- Adjudication

- Permitting process examined

- Instream flows - Must be maintained for fish & wildlife

- Water quality - All uses must ensure that water quality is maintained especially in light of oil and gas development.

ASSOCIATED WITH DILLON MEETING - Storage; both on stream and off stream was a very big topic for a lot of people.

- Creation of a centralized data base where water records could be found easier than what is now available.

- Explore funding possibilities for water storage and rehabilitating existing structures and creating a network to access those funding possibilities.

- Water rights are property rights and should be protected.

- An idea we discussed after the meeting was protection for a water right that was only partially used for irrigation and the rest left in the stream for fish enhancement for many years. The same protection for a mining right that may not be used for many years because of negative economic factors associated with the market for the minerals. These rights should be protected in their entirety.

C-26 | P a g e

- Humans are a natural part of the ecosystem, which means that we must include reasonable (equitable historically) resources to the future producers, recreators, and Montanans.

- We need a management plan for our forests.

- Do more research on the effects of more efficient irrigation practices. It doesn't make sense that producers use 1/2 water rights, produce more yield, but are hurting the water supply?

- Maintain state and local control as much as possible throughout planning. Take more control of Clark Canyon Dam (versus?) more control with Corps of Engineers.

- Streamline adjudication process - set timelines - Increase earmarked funding with audits - Make litigants and lawyers accountable to meet deadlines - get tough.

- Offstream storage - surface - Explore old and new groundwater storage areas - Augment groundwater with offseason flows

- Downstream states demand drawing water out of Montana

- Water budget and vegetative management - Forest health - timber management.

- Ethical issues concerning issues of water banking i.e.,, influence, lobbying, etc. Precedent-setting without statewide public comment.

- Period of use needs flexibility to deal with potential climate change issues.

- Groundwater storage through hybrid irrigation systems - high mountain (pico?) storage through improvements to existing small dams.

- Protection from eminent domain and ESA

- The adjudication process should not allow non water right holders a place at the table

- Not to tax water right holders by their water right (cfs of by right #)

- use of ESA to force change or water use and place of use.

- Storage of water should be considered at all times (off-season storage)

ADDITIONAL INPUT SUBMITTED DURING PUBLIC MEETING PHASE (NOT ASSOCIATED WITH MEETINGS) - The State Water Plan should include consideration of the nexus between water quantity and quality... the MWSI should create a needed data clearinghouse so as to better inform water quantity decision-making... The statute required a "comprehensive inventory" of water resources, which should water quantity and quality..., including an inventory of water quality issues, particularly those whose acuteness is inherently tied to water quantity. At least eleven sub-watersheds within the Upper Missouri Basin have at least one TMDLs, meaning they fail to support their designated uses. The majority concern excessive loading of nutrients, sediment, and or temperature problems. ... Sedimentation and high temperatures in waterways are interrelated with water quantity concerns.

C-27 | P a g e

There is readily available data on both water quantity and quality... The plan should not provide Montanans with available water, but waters that are fishable, swimmable, drinkable (see full 3-page letter for detail)

- Ban fracking. We can live without fracking but we cannot live without water. Fracking requires huge amounts of water for its operation and returns a terribly polluted product back to the ground when it is done. The small amounts of fuel to be had with this method are nothing compared to the damage and expense of land, water, and health repair needed to offset the problem, if that is even possible.

- Cap population growth or require xeriscaping in new developments. Rampant growth is what every cancer cell loves. Is that our model? We need to apply wisdom for our future plan, not short sighted fear. Let us be leaders in future planning, not banging our heads on the same things that are not working anymore.

- Finally, only when we preserve every bit of wilderness and natural balance that we can will we have the health and wholeness of our families, air , land, and water to have anything to plan about in our future.

- Water adjudication and basin closures appear to only consider surface flows and rights... We seem to arbitrarily separate surface water from groundwater for solving some issues or regulating some uses, while in other cases we connect surface water and groundwater when more convenient. ...All water, both surface and ground, is connected and the state water plan must include both in the analysis of water quantity and availability. (see full letter for detail)

- We are well below over-(appropriation). Water reserves have been discussed in both above ground and underground storage. The use of flood irrigation has a clear benefit to groundwater storage and has been considered an option in many places in Montana to mitigate municipal and surface water usage. (see letter for detail)

- Any initiative involving natural resources should give due attention to conservation and efficient use. It is especially critical as the human population continues to increase. And, wise use of water is directly and indirectly linked to energy use.

- Because most water use in Montana is for agriculture, there should be educational efforts to educate producers on the numerous ways they can use water more wisely. This includes using the most efficient irrigation equipment available and considering crops that can grow on what rain we receive in this semi-arid state and/or crops that require the least amount of irrigation. The USDA and other federal entities have resources, but I could not provide links as the websites are down due to the furlough. This link lists resources: http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/Region8/AgricultureWater.shtml

- Urban water users have numerous opportunities for improvement as well. My neighbor waters his lawn every day, but complains when there are low river levels and restrictions to fishing. My Homeowner’s Association used to water our common areas at noon during July, but after I spoke up about how this wastes up to 30% of the water due to evaporation, they changed the watering time. I used to work as a water conservation specialist for a city in Colorado that had junior water rights, and we had water “restrictions.” What’s interesting is that we simply required people only use what was actually needed for their lawns. There are universally accepted Best Management Practices (BMPs) for outdoor and indoor water use that include no- and low-cost measures for wise water use.

- Using water wisely takes not only an educated and informed public, but an infrastructure (services and equipment) to support folks who want to use water wisely. At a minimum, local water suppliers/utilities should

C-28 | P a g e

provide access to information on how to use water more wisely. Simple strategies could include listing a tip a month on water bills, listing BMP’s on websites or posters for public bulletin boards, etc.

Resource links: 1. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense website: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/ 2. U.S. DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_bmp.html 3. Greater Yellowstone Area Xeriscaping: A Guide for Landscaping with Less Water. I have the document as a PDF, but it’s large so I will not send to you unless you ask. For a hard copy or to be sent a link (if there is one) contact Virginia Kelly, GYCC Executive Coordinator at Phone: 406-587-6704; E-mail: [email protected] 4. I cannot attend the Bozeman water meeting because I will be attending the Net Zero Energy Leadership Summit in Irvine, CA. Attendees have been asked to read about Collective Impact. Such a collaboration that included representatives from all user groups that value water and water quality would be worthy of your consideration: http://www.netzeroenergysummit.com/collective-impact

- (Paraphrased from e-mail and phone input) Michigan underwent a state planning process that bogged down somewhat until they defined their decision space. They identified a list of Guiding Principles that they could all stand by and then planning went much more smoothly after that. Although Michigan is different than Montana (as is evidenced by the first Principle), the process could be a good idea for Montana's state water planning. One way to generate a list of agreed-upon principles is to go around the room asking each person to propose a principle. For each proposed principle: If anyone totally disagrees, then they say so and explain why, and then we let it go. If anyone disagrees as proposed, but feels they could agree if it were worded or nuanced differently, then we all work together to find common language for that principle. The first draft might be a list of long, convoluted principles. Then someone wordsmiths it to make it clear and concise, and then the group reviews it, repeat until everyone stands by it. Then it becomes the guidepost that delineates our decision space for state water planning. This was also the model for the Brisbane Declaration on Environmental Flows. The first draft was a zillion pages long. I edited it down to 5 pages. 60 people commented. They all said “add this and make it shorter.” The final draft is 2 pages long and has been cited hundreds of times.

Below are Michigan's draft Principles:

Michigan Guiding Principles March 20, 2007 draft

1. Michigan has an abundance of water resources. There is no overall shortage of water in the State. Currently, water withdrawals in Michigan do not present a crisis. 2. Not all water withdrawals are alike, and have differing levels and types of impacts. Certain water sources can support a large amount of withdrawal without harm to other users or to the ecosystem. Other water sources are more vulnerable to large withdrawals. 3. Some areas of the state have been identified as sensitive to groundwater withdrawals. Current and future withdrawals in these areas require a higher degree of monitoring, scientific research, and understanding. 4. Water is a valuable asset, and if used efficiently, can provide the basis of a strong economy and high quality of life in Michigan. 5. Ground and surface water are strongly interrelated and cannot be viewed as separate and distinct. 6. In order to protect basic ecological function, adequate stream base flow must be maintained. 7. Water use by type of user or by purpose of use is not prioritized. 8. The amount of water withdrawn from a hydrologic system must be sustainable. Water resource sustainability involves the use of scientific analysis to balance the economic, social and environmental

C-29 | P a g e

demands placed on the resource to ensure that the needs of current and future generations are not compromised by current usage. 9. Indicators of sustainability are important to assessing Michigan’s water use. 10. The accuracy and effectiveness of water management is an evolutionary, long-term process that must be continually enhanced with scientific information. Additional monitoring of stream flows, water levels, aquatic ecosystems, and related mapping and analysis is essential to protecting water resources. 11. Any water management process must be consistent with applicable statutory and common law in Michigan, neither abrogating nor expanding the law absent specific legislative action. 12. Consistency of regulation and predictability between state and local units of government are essential to managing the resource. 13. Education is critical for all water users, private and public, to understand their responsibilities for water conservation and efficient use. 14. Local, voluntary problem-solving approaches for resolving water use disputes and withdrawal impacts are the desirable starting point for conflict resolution. Michigan has a role in disputes involving impacts on environmentally sensitive areas. Legal action by any party should be seen as the last option. 15. Withdrawals presenting the greatest risk of causing an adverse impact to natural resources should be the primary focus of a water management process. 16. Information gathered and provided for the purpose of preliminary evaluation of water withdrawal projects must be simple and understandable in the most accurate and represented manner possible. 17. Mitigation of adverse resource impacts is a reasonable alternative for new and expanding water withdrawals where deemed appropriate. 18. Conservation of water resources includes the efficient use and protection of quality. 19. Preliminary evaluation of potential adverse resource impacts on fish populations and other existing water users caused by new water withdrawal must have value to new and existing water users, is important prior to significant economic investment and is critical to determining the need for further analysis. 20. The goals of a water use assessment tool are to provide a better understanding of withdrawal impacts, to minimize water use conflicts, to facilitate water planning among stakeholders, and to assess long-term conservation strategies.

C-30 | P a g e

C-31 | P a g e

C-32 | P a g e

APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF DECEMBER PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD

At its October meeting, the Council decided they wanted a broad public review of their preliminary work. Due to their interest in public involvement, the Council decided to open a public review period from December 2nd through December 12th, 2013. DNRC posted the Public Input Draft of the Summary online, along with a link to an online input tool that allowed respondents to provide their opinions of what is working well (or not) related to Montana's water resources, the relative importance of closing the listed data gaps, and the relative importance of the issues identified so far in the Council process. Respondents could also provide general comments and suggestions. On December 2nd, the Council's facilitator sent notice of the public review opportunity via e-mail to the contact list used in the Council recruitment phase, to the public interest list being built by DNRC through all phases of planning, and to the Council and its resource experts, asking all to forward broadly to networks and colleagues. She sent an e-mail reminder to the same lists on December 10th. Tight timelines prohibited preparation of a press release and media coordination; the process instead relied on the large mailing list and forwarding as the dissemination method. Results are summarized below. Any references to individuals' names have been removed.

Additional public input opportunities will be provided in future phases of planning. Table D-1. Respondents by Residence Big Sky Livingston (2) PARTICIPATION Bozeman (4) Roundup Between December 2nd and midnight on December 12th, 91 people viewed the online input tool, and 24 submitted Clark Sheridan (2) responses. Respondents' residences, and the water use sectors to which they felt aligned (for those who specified a Davie, FL Townsend sector), are shown at in Tables D-1 And D-2. Those citing "Other" as a sector referenced "Watershed", "All equal by Dillon (3) Uvalde, TX law", "Geomorphology, Science", and "Agriculture AND Wildlife/Fish AND Recreation". Grand Pass, MO Valier MT Great Falls (2) Whitehall (2) Some respondents appeared to have reviewed the draft Summary before responding; others appeared to have not. All questions specified below were embedded in the Summary document to foster cross-referencing. Table D-2. Respondents Citing a INPUT Water Use Sector Agriculture 4 WHAT'S WORKING WELL Industrial 0 Respondents had the opportunity to rate the items listed in the Draft Summary related to input received on what's Municipal/Domestic/ 6 working well (or not) related to Montana's water resources. The question was, "Which of the following do you think Commercial are working well (or not) related to Montana's water resources?". Rating options were "Working Well", "Neutral/Not Fish/Wildlife 4 Sure", and "Not Working Well". Not all participants rated all elements. The cumulative ratings, by element, are shown Recreation/Tourism 7 in Figure C-1. Text responses related to this topic are collated in Table D-3. Other 3

D-1 | P a g e

Figure D-1. What's Working Well (or Not)

16

14

12

10

8

6

4 Working Well

Cumulative NumberCumulative ofRatings, Category by 2 Neutral/Not Sure Not Working Well 0

Input Items to Council (see Report for full description of entries)

D-2 | P a g e

Table D-3. Responses Related to, "Do you have items to add that either are, or are not, working well, or general comments?" I have general concerns about how the new Water Plan will address a trend towards the subdivision of landholdings along riparian areas that results in smaller landholders pursuing different land and water use goals than may have traditionally been pursued by large agricultural concerns. It seems that this presents both an opportunity for the re-establishment of more natural riparian corridors with the appropriate technical guidance and incentives. However, it may also increase the complexity of trying to achieve consensus among more landowners about best management practices within a given watershed ecosystem. NOT WORKING - Water rights does not actually allow for innovative ideas on sharing water. WORKING WELL - DNRC staff bending over backwards to try to help make the system work within the law. When changing from flood to sprinkler, it must be limited to historical consumptive use in all cases. Even when not increasing acres or point of diversion. Also less diversion rate in spring can let water leave the river system and less water return flows in summer can harm water rights in dewatered streams. NRCS needs to consult the DNRC before changes they pay for. Concerning the actual needs of streams to receive sufficient flows to maintain natural geometry, not only to support fish, but also to self maintain, I think there needs to be something in the law. Current beneficial uses, as far as I understand, do not include self maintenance. The same would be true for wetlands. Currently someone has to prove that a wetland needs water to exist. It seems like the State, charged with holding the water for the Citizens, would have that responsibility. I'm a professor working on stream restoration with USF&WS and MTFW&P in the upper Big Hole drainage. This project is mostly going very well. In-stream flows during late season are better than in the past, but the past included zero cfs at the Wisdom Bridge! Hard to do worse. In my view, in-stream flows are better than when I started working with (name removed) on this project in 2006, but still inadequate if the goal is to keep fluvial Arctic grayling off of the ESL. In addition, the grazing preclusion agreements are regularly violated, depending on the landowner. This is big public money going down the drain and a lot of wasted effort on the behalf of the managers. They don't like to say this, but I do the assessment with my students, so I can see the results of post-preclusion grazing. It doesn't take long to undo five years of work!

We also work on the forest and BLM, and I can tell you that years of restoration work on the USFS land done by (name removed) has been reversed, because range cons were put in charge after his retirement. These people are trained to maximize animal units on the forest and know little about how this negatively impacts riparian systems. The same is happening on the BLM land in the Beaverhead region. Most streams are a mess. Hi I have canoed on the Yellowstone, Missouri river and the Mississippi for many miles over the years. I live in Florida and can't answer your questions but want to say I know of people from other countries who are also paddling your rivers. I hope you keep them open, free flowing and clean...thanks The water storage facilities are not managed well as evidenced by recent flood/drought cycles that are not much different than before the damning. There appears to be a lack of recognition of the tourist and recreational potential of the Missouri and other rivers, outside of the Missouri Breaks section. I am a UK citizen residing in Texas who kayaked the length of the Missouri River in 2013. What happens in Montana will affect the rest of

D-3 | P a g e

the river. The river is not a ditch to exploit or throw trash into. DEQ and DNRC need to work together on a streamlined permitting process for the recharging of aquifers with reclaimed water. My biggest concern is the huge impact hydroelectric facilities could have on the availability of water for irrigation should they make call. This report recognizes, as it should, that water rights are property and protected as such by the MT constitution. However, the State of MT also has the duty to manage the waters of the state for the greater good of it's people. I don't know what the economic return is for an acre foot of water flowing through an electric generating turbine, I wish I did. I do know, as an irrigated farmer and irrigation project director, that an acre foot of water applied in the production of small grains or alfalfa will return $500- $1000 per acre. As I stated earlier I don't know the value of water for power generation, but I would make a guess that it is less than 10% of the value of irrigation water. I believe it would be in the best interest of the people of MT if the legislature would address the issue by reducing the flow rate of the hydro water rights to their historic levels (use) and compensating them for the reduction. If the Legislature can find the MATL line to be worthy of 'eminent domain' for it's public benefit certainly the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars generated by irrigation are a benefit to the public. THX The way the questions are worded is misleading and will result in confusing input. The lack of enforcement by DNRC is creating anarchy in the water rights system and in actual use of water. My experience, reinforced by the findings in this report, is that the DNRC is only looking at paper rights and on-paper use of land, not actual water usage and land usage. One need only to look at the actual ground under irrigation now in closed basins as compared to the 80's when they were closed to see the increase. Looking at land use as listed on paper doesn't tell the story. There are many new acres irrigated that are not listed in water rights; and many of the current subdivisions that have supposedly been taken out of irrigated acres are now irrigating 20 acre plots with exempt wells. A simple exercise of comparing the well records at the Bureau of Mines against the DNRC water rights data base reveals numerous new large irrigation wells drilled that do not have filed water rights. Lack of resources is the continuing excuse for DNRC not meeting their enforcement responsibilities. If water rights and water usage is ever going to be managed correctly, this must change. Expecting water rights holders to have to go to court to enforce violations is unrealistic, expensive and simply won't resolve the growing over consumption of water. It has evolved to a system of those with money doing as they want because other senior rights holders can't afford the cost. The number one problem with our water use and over use is lack of enforcement. With all due respect, the above 'comment' opportunities are a pre-written script designed to get only the answers the author desires. There is no real opportunity to offer comment on these items.

OVERSUPPLIES/SHORTAGES Respondents also had the opportunity to provide input to the Oversupplies and Shortages sections of the Summary, by answering the following question: "Do you have comments or suggestions for the Oversupplies or Shortages sections of this report?" The entries for this question are collated in Table D-4.

D-4 | P a g e

Table D-4. Responses Related to, "Do you have comments or suggestions for the Oversupplies or Shortages sections of this report?" OVERSUPPLY - We need to be very careful not to upset the benefits of high water which include recharging the ground water. Also do not want people to become dependent upon this extra water that when it is not there, we are even more short than are now.

SHORTAGES - Many drainages in Montana are already over allocated so we need tools/water law that support water conservation that protects existing water rights while letting saved water remain in the river and/or share between all needs. Need more retention areas The Beaverhead River is a mess. They shut down that reservoir tight as a drum in the fall, concentrating the fish into visible groups in limited pools. The vegetative growth in the 'stream' is terrible and, although I don't have the electroshock data, it appears to me that rainbow numbers are declining, probably as a result of the late-season low flows. Channel morphology is terrible on the Beaverhead and sedimentation/siltation is shameful. Clark Creek and Grasshopper Creek are the culprits for sediment. In Clark Creek, one landowner is to blame. In Grasshopper Creek, it is over a century of destruction and continued degradation from both mining and ranching that make it a major sediment source for the Beaverhead. Try walking the Beaverhead in waders below these two tributaries and see for yourself. Is there good data to support the contention that 'flood irrigation in some areas can increase aquifer levels and late-season return flows, whereas sprinkler irrigation of the same acreage diverts less, but may consume more water overall.' Oversupply water needs to be left alone, let the water flow during wet years. We need the silt distribution that high water provides, especially around whitehall where pipestone creek dumps into the jefferson slough. If people have concerns over safety during high water then stay out of the water, pretty simple fix right? Again, Better utilization of the recycling of reclaimed water into aquifers. I don't believe the report adequately addresses the potential impacts of full implementation for the Tribal water rights compacts. Need data to confirm and support whatever recommendation will be made at the end of the planning process. Analysis absent data to support/confirm is merely anecdotal conjecture.

TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS The online input tool included the following question related to the trends and projections information in the Summary: "What trends or projections can you add that are important to Montana's water planning?" The entries in response to this question are collated in Table D-5.

Table D-5. Responses Related to, "What trends or projections can you add that are important to Montana's water planning?" I project that communities and businesses are needing more water than is available in closed basins. These businesses than leave. Example, Teton drainage a malting plant wanted to open up but could not because of no water. Some verified streams need re-examined as they have lots of mistakes and few issue remarks such as the Musselshell. With out a correct

D-5 | P a g e

adjudication the down stream states will blow holes in any water plan. Potential exists for longer and deeper drought periods in the upper basin Climate change, climate change, climate change! I suspect that 100 years from now, we will look much more like norther Nevada in southwest Montana. Relations in the Beaverhead drainage between outfitters and ranchers is already poor, and I expect it to get worse as they fight over a decreasing resource. The law is clearly with the ranchers at this point. Recreation use not only from Montana residents but world wide. More recognition and awareness to the rivers recreational use has increased world wide not just locally here in the state. I want to insure that future generations are able to access and use the river for activities and to experience the history, wildlife and natural resources along the river especially via boating, canoeing, and kayaking. I've read several articles written by non-Americans who have used the river for boating, these articles not only bring awareness to the Upper Missouri for potential other users/ tourist which in turn bring more dollars to the local economy. Many people view the Missouri for its historic aspects especially since the 2004-06 Lewis and Clark BIcentennial. I provide a base-camp at my home in Livingston for travelers of both the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. Last year I assisted England's (name removed) as he made his historic first descent of the Missouri River water system (From Browers Spring the utmost source of the Missouri in the Centennials, (name removed) descended the river by foot and kayak to the Gulf of Mexico.) His journal was publicized in several national magazines as well as online. His articles covered water issues, historic and other water related issues.....The point being that more recognition of the Upper Missouri not only comes from Montana residents but also a growing recreational use from people from other states and other countries. ( I has assisted in an Australian, A Canadian and this past summer Missouri state resident (name removed) as she completed the FIRST descent by a woman and American resident. (Name removed) is a teacher so her historic journey which embodies every aspect of the Missouri River will be used to teach and bring others aware of the river. The overall point is the river is becoming more known worldwide as a recreational river and means to experience the historic journeys of Lewis and Clark. I am persoanlly for keeping every aspect of river access, river flows, proper water levels and a high quality of water available for future river travelers. Where projections are disregarded or made unaware is when the source of the information is not obtained or gathered. So it is important that the recreational users are involved and given a voice. Please don't leave the recreational users out of issues There seems to be little or no planning for the highest return on investment, recreation. There is little coordination between the parks management and the water management. Paddling the Missouri River is becoming an internationally recognized activity - much like the Appalachian Trail or the other long-distance hiking trails. These trails bring tourists and dollars into rural communities that might not otherwise participate in tourist activity. From my own experience. it appears that river users are generally ignored unless they have a powerboat. More regulation on Montana's water being sold on the open market. It is a bad idea. Montanas water belongs to Montanans and Montana's future generations. Conserving rights is just as important as water conservation. As an irrigation project director I am painfully aware of the trend toward lower snow packs, even though total yearly precip. has remained basically static. Our project has snow/precip records from the very early 1900's and the trend is obvious. I think scientific studies and modeling need to be done... climate change is real, as are population trends. Increasing demand and decreasing supply need to be planned for. More long-term stream gages on the tribs of the upper Mo are needed to understand future impacts of development and changing climate.

D-6 | P a g e

A larger groundwater monitoring network is also needed to develop a better understanding of longterm groundwater trends. Serious consideration of climate change is prudent and resultant impacts to timing/quantity/type of precipitation together with temp effects on runoff timing/quantity and consumptive losses due to increased ET rates if temps projected to rise. The Plan must account for change and the State should do so using best available climate science. This is enormously important and cannot merely be given perfunctory consideration. Decisions must take into account scientific evidence of climate change, and predictions of future warming and drying in the Upper Missouri Basin.

DATA GAPS Respondents had the opportunity to rate the data gaps listed in the Summary. The question was, "Please rate (high, medium, or low) the importance of closing the following data gaps during water planning in the Upper Missouri Basin." Not every respondent rated every element. The cumulative results of the ratings are shown in Figure D-2.

ISSUES Respondents also had the opportunity to rate the issues listed in the Summary. The question was, "Please rate (high, medium, or low) how important the following issues are to address in the State Water Plan Update for the Upper Missouri Basin." Not every respondent rated every element. The cumulative results of the ratings are shown in Figure D-3.

NEXT STEPS Respondents had the opportunity to provide input to the following questions: "What steps, activities,, tasks,, or actions do you think would best enable the Upper Missouri Basin Advisory Council make helpful and relevant water plan recommendations by July 2014?" and "Who should be involved as productive participants, for what tasks?". The entries for these questions are collated in TableD-6.

GENERAL COMMENTS The Online Input Tool closed with an opportunity for any closing thoughts from respondents. The question was, "Do you have any general comments on the Council's Draft Issues Scoping Summary not addressed above?". Entries for this question are collated in Table D-7.

D-7 | P a g e

Figure D-2. Data Gaps to Close

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2 High

Cumulative NumberCumulative ofRatings, Category by 0 Medium Low

Data Gaps Suggested So Far (see Report for full description of gaps)

D-8 | P a g e

Figure D-3. Issue Priority 20

18

16

14

12

10

8 High 6 Medium

4 Low Cumulative NumberCumulative of Ratings, Category by 2

0

Council-Prioritized Issues (see Report for full descriptions of issues)

D-9 | P a g e

Suggested Next Steps Who Should be Involved 1. Need to immediately improve monitoring of flows Need to include major groups such as CDs, 2. Adjudication process needs to be completed now watershed efforts, irrigation districts, FWP - all 3. Better information on where water is coming from and where going. Lots of illegal uses at once so can agree on how the information is going on that need to be found and stopped. being gathered and used. Correct and finish the adjudication. this is the foundation of any future water planning. All users Increase public awareness; more frequent with detailed examples on TV, Radio, Local news Schools, Ranchers / farmers, news media, media, school / student interaction, etc. Need to develop a base foundation of public community planning, development of a 'local knowledge and interests water issues boards' be used to help coordinate information '2-way' sharing Thank you for the email today about comment deadlines. Great report of activities to date, and good work! Though key and knowledgeable people are at the table for facilitated discussions, would be even richer to figure out a way to more broadly share the work done so far, and opportunities of this valuable initiative, to the lay public (which in part is what this survey does, so thank you!). I know efforts have been made to do this, and to do more means someone's time, but it could involve simply inserting presentations from here on out at all natural resource and economic development conferences in the basin, and more in the media about what an active state water plan is and does and what it really means to people. For instance, I look at the important work large collaborative landscape initiatives are doing now to engage stakeholders; the state water planning process is already doing some of this and offers valuable lessons. Bottom line, people could gain even more ownership of the roles they can later play in action steps that arise from the state water planning process. To most, the action recommendations of the plan are/will be fairly technical and experts will be the ones to see them through. That said, awareness=engagement. If budget allows, offering a media blitz, short talks, public presentations at existing conferences and webinars would be money well spent . . .but I know this means time and money which the State may not have at this time. As an interested citizen, thank you for your fine work. Not sure. I think supporting the local watershed committees is a good place to start, because Ranchers, land managers, academics working on that process is working in the upper Big Hole. Maybe it would work in the Beaverhead? the problem and conservation groups (e.g., TU and TNC). Too difficult at this point, need to be looking a 2015 and beyond and so much is already All Montana as well as down stream residents determined as we approatch 2014. Determine where ineffective water use is high and and organizations. The Missouri river system is implement ideas from where the issues are at the lowest until further info can be gathered. the forth longest river system in the world. The Determine where top dollars are invested in water....either recreation or agriculture and affects here in the upper reaches also effect

D-10 | P a g e

insure that they have proper amounts as not to lose recreation dollars which bring immediate those in the other 12 states that flow to the Gulf money to local economy verses agriculture which does not necessarily affect local of Mexico. We should involve all organizations/ economy...for example if product (beef or grain) is shipped outside the state and not sold or recreational/ industrial and agricultural the used inside the state. entire 3800 miles of the drainage. Cooperation of all concerned parties. All UPO's, ACE, State and National Parks, and Clear and concise goals water use boards should be directly tasked with ACE developing a better understand of the highest and best use of the lower river and its planning and evaluation. effect on the upper. Keep involving the public. I think you need to have another public meeting in the near future Water users and those who attended the public to ensure you have all the information you need. If we need to do this then let's do it once issues meetings. I think you should choose them and not drag it out. randomly for the different tasks. Ag people should be involved with municipalities and vice versa. better analysis of existing usage coupled with projected demands. DEQ (name removed) permitting and compliance for the use of reclaimed water. Listen to the folks that have used the water for decades and look at the economic s of that The people who have historically used the use. water. Recommend that DNRC get the resources necessary for enforcement of water rights, then mandate that they do so. Look at what is actually going on on the ground instead of using 'paper' information!!!! A written document is good for referencing but to get real results lobbying on capital hill is needed to get results for the basin. Again, these are written so that you cannot actually offer comment. For instance, the question about water data... we feel it is very important to use the science. There are a number of different resources currently available. However, adding the word 'diversity' causes concern. Does this mean that if the scientists don't produce the desired results we 'diversify' to non-science based sources?

Table D-7. Other General Comments I think you are doing good things for the different groups involved in this. Keep people involved. Thanks. thanks for the efforts to date. On page 5 of the report, where there is a map of the rivers in the basin, the Ruby River has not been identified. Please do so. Just some editorial comments:

D-11 | P a g e

You are throwing a lot of numbers around, I would suggest referencing some of them and when you bring up studies (ie.: Beaverhead groundwater study on page 10) provide a internet url link in the text or references to those specific study reports – ie. http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf-open-files/MBMG384-upperbeaverheadbasin.pdf. When discussing water rights or water law especially water leasing on pg 16 and table on 21– provide a MT constitutional statute reference for each tool. How do I know which figures and tables you are discussing in the text if you don't reference them by number? page 10 - section title, and pg 23 and 29 table, Groundwater is one word per USGS and for consistency Figure 6 and 14 captions or text body needs an explanation of what the two red arrows represent and red circle, respectively. On Page 17, which owner is doing the upgrade to Gibson and Clark Canyon? Figure 9 caption has unnecessary under-score. Pg 1, Pg 3, Pg 4, Pg 13, Pg 14, Pg 16, pg 21, pg 23, pg 28, pg 29 tables need a caption Pg 23 needs figure caption Figure 31 has the word “source” given twice Wrong acronym used for Groundwater Investigation program should be GWIP- http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/gwip/gwip.asp ,(GWIC is Groundwater Investigation Center) Define what the acronym cfs and gpd stand for. Possibly give acre-feet the acronym AF. I would hope that the state water plan sets forth specific recommendations to develop a Decision Support System and prioritizes implementation of same on the basis of need. Need being defined as those areas seeing, or projected to see, the largest degree of change over the life of the planning document. In the 'data gap' section, it is suggested that there is a shortage of information on water supply and surface/groundwater connection. The Montana Water Well Driller's Association believes that there are a number of reliable sources available that are currently taxpayer funded and suggests that rather than create another study group, that the existing information be better coordinated. With that, we also recognize that the State Library is currently tasked with that assignment. We are very supportive the use of good science in making water decisions.

Due to the short time frame allowed for comments, a number of my board members were not able to respond. For this reason, we may have further comments on other areas of the proposal as the process goes forward.

D-12 | P a g e