Conflict and Context:
An analysis of water conflict and collaboration in Idaho between 1950 and 2019
By
J. Colt Dickman
Presented
December 2nd, 2020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I must thank my beautiful and amazing wife for unconditionally supporting this venture. She kept her business, our family, and household expertly running while I worked long hours at work and stayed up late most nights working through this degree. This would not have been possible without your love and support Chelsi; I am forever in your loving debt for allowing me this opportunity.
Thank you so much to my patient academic advisor, Dr. Todd Jarvis. For over four long years he patiently entertained my progress that was at times, slowed by professional or personal hurdles. He always gave me just enough guidance to keep me on track but largely left the guardrails off so I could learn from my circuitous academic journey. The professional mentorship was critical to completing this work and I will always strive to maintain the professional standard you helped me establish, as I venture into Idaho’s water arena. Todd, thank you again.
Thank you to my capstone committee members, for their time and consideration throughout the process. Multiple critiques, suggestions, and revisions made this work more meaningful and I am grateful for the professional courtesy shown to me by the members.
Without financial support I would not have been able to complete this degree. The Oregon State University’s Ecampus Military Grant provided the support which allowed me to focus my efforts on this goal and finish the program. Thank you for all the work they do supporting veterans at OSU!
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge those people in my life that planted the inquisitive seed or helped it bloom into values that moved me to complete this work. My mother always taught me the importance of respectfully questioning every premise. Dr. Paul Wanke taught me that without a deep understanding of our history, we will likely never move past our mistakes. Dr. Robert Lackey and Dr. David Perry solidified my understanding of my responsibility as a scientist within society. Malcolm Gladwell lit a fire in my soul and taught me about underdogs, misfits, and the art of battling giants.
I am humbled and sincerely appreciative for the relationships that have manifested in this work and a future career helping to develop equitable and sustainable solutions for wicked water problems in Idaho and beyond.
2
Table of Contents Acronyms ...... 1 List of Figures and Tables ...... 2 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 Hypothesis...... 4 Justification of Research ...... 5 HISTORY OF WATER IN IDAHO ...... 6 Hydrogeologic History ...... 6 Social History ...... 9 Conflict History: ...... 13 COMPARISON WITH OTHER RIVER BASINS ...... 19 Klamath River Basin Comparison ...... 20 Deschutes River Basin ...... 22 River Basin Comparison Analysis: ...... 23 METHODS ...... 26 Constructing a Research Data Base ...... 27 Data Sources ...... 27 Event Search Methodology ...... 28 Event Definition ...... 29 Event Classification: ...... 29 Data Categories ...... 30 Spatial and Temporal Scope ...... 31 Conflict-Collaboration Scale ...... 32 Assumptions and Known Biases...... 35 DISCUSSION ...... 37 Initial Data Observations ...... 37 Data Segregation ...... 41 Data Analysis Comparison ...... 44 Data Analysis ...... 49 Conflict and Collaboration Comparison by Month ...... 56 Future Conflict Projections and Solutions ...... 57 Unaccounted Water Use ...... 58
Idaho’s Changing Economy ...... 60 Climate Change and Ecological Conflicts ...... 62 Current Shortfall and Existing Solutions ...... 65 CONCLUSION ...... 68 Hypothesis Test ...... 68 Scenario Based Considerations ...... 71 Proposed Solutions ...... 73 Final Observations: ...... 76 Works Cited ...... 79
2
Acronyms AF: Acre Foot
BOR: Bureau of Reclamation
CRB: Clearwater River Basin
CW: Conjunctive Water Event
DRB: Deschutes River Basin
ESPA: Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer
GIS: Geographical Information System
GW: Groundwater Event
IDWR: Idaho Department of Water Resources
IGWA: Idaho Groundwater Appropriators
IMAR: Incentivized Managed Aquifer Recharge
IWRB: Idaho Water Resource Board
KRB: Klamath River Basin
MAR: Managed Aquifer Recharge
PNW: Pacific Northwest
SRB: Snake River Basin
SRBA: Snake River Basin Adjudication
SRP: Snake River Plain
SW: Surface water event
SWC: Surface Water Coalition
1
List of Figures and Tables TABLE 1 IDAHO'S GDP FROM 1976 THROUGH 1979 AS REPORTED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... 15 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF EVENT TYPES BETWEEN KRISTEL FESLER'S RESEARCH AND THIS RESEARCH. EVENT TYPE IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE WATER EVENT IN THE DATABASE...... 24 TABLE 3 (LEFT) IDAHO'S 4 WATER REGIONS AND 98 ADMINISTRATIVE RIVER BASINS (HTTPS://IDWR.MAPS.ARCGIS.COM/) AND (RIGHT) THE NUMBER OF EVENTS BY RIVER BASIN FROM THE RESEARCH DATA...... 31 TABLE 4 CONFLICT SCALE DEPICTING THE SCALE USED TO MEASURE EACH EVENT IN THE RESEARCH DATABASE TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF CONFLICT OR COLLABORATION MODIFIED FROM FESLER’S CONFLICT INTENSITY CODING...... 34 TABLE 5 REPRESENTATION OF THE NEGATIVE (INCREASED CONFLICT SEVERITY) TREND AT THE END OF PERIOD ONE, LIKELY DUE TO SYSTEMATIC CHANGE FROM NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS ...... 38 TABLE 6 REPRESENTATION OF PERIOD THREE OF THE DATABASE WHICH DEPICTS THE NEW CONFLICT CYCLE WHICH HAS EMERGED AFTER PERIOD TWO ...... 39 TABLE 7 CUMULATIVE RESEARCH DATA FROM 1950-2019 WITH DATABASE PERIODS AND A GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTED OVER THE SAME TIME FRAME ...... 40 TABLE 8SNAKE RIVER BASIN WATER EVENT DATA FROM 1950-2019 ...... 42 TABLE 9 STATEWIDE WATER EVENT DATA FROM 1950-2019 ...... 43 TABLE 10 CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN WATER EVENT DATA FROM 1950-2019 ...... 44 TABLE 11 CAPARISON OF LINE CHART AND SCATTER PLOT GRAPH WITH A LINEAR TREND LINE FOR SRB DATA ...... 46 TABLE 12 CAPARISON OF LINE CHART AND SCATTER PLOT GRAPH WITH A LINEAR TREND LINE FOR STATEWIDE DATA ...... 47 TABLE 13 CAPARISON OF LINE CHART AND SCATTER PLOT GRAPH WITH A LINEAR TREND LINE FOR CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN DATA ...... 48 TABLE 14 SRB DATA WITH MOVING AVERAGE TRENDLINE...... 53 TABLE 15 STATEWIDE DATA WITH MOVING AVERAGE TRENDLINE.TABLE 16 CRB DATA WITH MOVING AVERAGE TRENDLINE...... 54 TABLE 17 CUMULATIVE CONFLICTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE DATA BY MONTH ...... 57 TABLE 18 IDAHO ECONOMIC COMPARISON LOOKING AT GDP ACROSS SECTORS OF IDAHO'S ECONOMY WHICH COULD IMPACT AGRICULTURAL USE OF WATER. SOURCE OF DATA: HTTPS://APPS.BEA.GOV/ ...... 60 TABLE 19 TOTAL IWRB WATER LEASES AND RENTALS FROM 2010-2018. CHART COURTESY OF THE IWRB VIA (EBELING, ET AL. 2019) ...... 67
FIGURE 1 GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE SNAKE RIVER BASIN AND THE SNAKE RIVER PLAIN WITHIN THE BASIN. IMAGE GENERATED WITH GOOGLE EARTH PRO (MAY 2020) ...... 7 FIGURE 2 GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE SNAKE RIVER PLAIN. IMAGE GENERATED WITH GOOGLE EARTH PRO (MAY 2020) ..... 8 FIGURE 3 ESPA GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION FOR PERSPECTIVE ON THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE AQUIFER...... 9 FIGURE 4ESPA PERFORMANCE FROM 1912-2014 AS MEASURED BY OUTFLOW AT THOUSAND SPRINGS. CHART BUILT BY IDWR AND OBTAINED AT: HTTPS://WWW.BOISESTATEPUBLICRADIO.ORG? ...... 11 FIGURE 5(LEFT) IGWA MEMBERS ON THE SRP, (RIGHT) SWC MEMBERS ON THE SRP. IMAGES FROM IDWR...... 18 FIGURE 6 GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION AND COMPARISON OF THE SRB, SRP, KRB, AND THE DRB, BUILT WITH GOOGLE EARTH PRO (MAY 2020) ...... 20 FIGURE 7 GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION AND COMPARISON OF THE SRP AND THE KRB, BUILT WITH GOOGLE EARTH PRO (MAY 2020) ...... 21 FIGURE 8 GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION AND COMPARISON OF THE SRP AND THE DRB, BUILT WITH GOOGLE EARTH PRO (MAY 2020) ...... 23 FIGURE 9 EPA GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS IN THE UNITED STATES ...... 59 FIGURE 10 ALGAE BLOOM ON THE SNAKE RIVER, PHOTO COURTESY OF THE IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE 2019 ...... 63 FIGURE 11 MANAGED AQUIFER RECHARGE (MAR) DIAGRAM. DIAGRAM COURTESY OF THE KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY...... 65
2
INTRODUCTION
“When the Well’s dry, we know the Worth of Water.” (Franklin 1746) Benjamin Franklin’s words are profoundly impactful to any discussion about water conflict. Mr. Franklin implies that prior to the well running dry humans cannot fully appreciate the value of water.
Without a respectful appreciation of the true cost of something as critical as water, a community will fail to properly appropriate and account for it until it may be too late. During one of the first classes I took as a master’s student, I was researching conflict that results from dams. I stumbled onto a story about how Idaho’s economy was almost destroyed in 1982 because of the water rights held by one of the smallest and oldest dams in the state. I could not immediately identify it, but there was something that did not make sense about that scenario. From that experience and continued research, it became clear that the context behind water conflict in Idaho is different and Idaho’s relationship with water is generally incongruent with other Pacific Northwest (PNW) States. It took this project to finally understand some of the differences about water conflict in Idaho.
Idaho often gets grouped into the PNW region’s complex relationship with water use and conflict. The history and research, however, convey a much simpler, myopic, scenario for Idaho which does not fit within the standard PNW experience of varied stakeholders with varied water uses. When one talks of water conflict in Idaho, they most usually mean water within the Snake River Basin (SRB) which drains about 86% of the state (Murray 2018). Most of Idaho’s water conflict centers around agriculture and because most of the agriculture is on the Snake River Plain (SRP), water conflict in Idaho mostly occurs on the SRP (Jones 2016). Unique characteristics of the SRP have created a unified set of values that the Snake River’s highest and best use is to irrigate as much of the SRP as possible. The alignment of most stakeholders in the process has driven Idaho towards one objective and has made water conflict narrowly focused. Water conflict on the SRP then is atypical of many river basins in the western United States. Water conflict on the SRP is not generally about the highest and best use of the
3 water, but rather appears to be based on water allocation between ground and surface water irrigators, and the best management practices for sustainable levels of use to support the continued growth the
SRP’s economy (Tominaga and James 2012). The purpose of this work is to understand Idaho’s unique relationship with water conflict from 1950-2019. By developing a better understanding of this exceptional situation with water conflict in Idaho, the research will present alternative solutions for transforming water conflict in Idaho into the future.
Hypothesis
The purpose of this project was to build a database of water events across the state of Idaho from 1950-2019 which would help test multiple hypothesizes.
1. Database will show what drives conflict and collaboration in groundwater and surface water.
Idaho is a western state should follow a similar progression with water conflict and
collaboration, the history of these events should demonstrate similar experiences when
compared with other similar research.
2. Social, political, economic, ecological, and legal factors should predict conflict and resolution.
3. The database should prove that water conflict grows over time and upon reaching a threshold,
resolutions will be found through collaborative actions and the conflict will de-escalate.
4. The social and economic relationship of groundwater and surface water in Idaho has a
predictable cycle of conflict over time and space.
5. Changing global trends will change existing relationship dynamics in the future.
o Environmental awareness
o Economic changes
o Climate change
4
Justification of Research
Research reviewed for this project generally categorizes Idaho into this standard western or
PNW water conflict model (Fesler 2007). If researchers and water managers continue to ask questions which are out of context, they will likely never find a meaningful answer that builds a sustainable solution. If researchers and water managers continue to view the situation through the standard US western water lens, they may never be able to understand the root cause of water conflict in Idaho.
Without this understanding, researchers and water managers will likely make inaccurate generalization which may lead to inappropriate courses of action. If those same groups never understand what has shaped stakeholder values in Idaho, they may fail to find sustainable consensus over time. This is especially important as Idaho looks to the future, at indicators of economic, regulatory, physical, and social changes which have the potential to substantially change Idaho’s water equation.
This work was initially modeled off Kristel Fesler’s thesis, An Analysis of Water Resource Conflict and Cooperation in Oregon, looking at what causes water conflict in Oregon. The original intent was to build a similar database and apply her model to Idaho helping to expand her research and build a deeper understanding of what causes water conflict in the PNW. At the outset it was expected that my research would confirm hers. That expectation quickly faded in the initial stages of research about the context of Idaho water conflict. It turns out that this research on water conflict in Idaho stands in contrast with many of her concepts of “western water.” What emerged is that Idaho has a unique relationship with its water that is not like Oregon and other PNW states. This finding about the uniqueness of Idaho’s relationship with water was a valuable contrast to Fesler’s research.
This examination of Idaho’s water conflict was instead aimed at exposing the implications of those differences. It is difficult to find research advocating for a comprehensive approach to planning or managing water resources in Idaho because of Idaho’s myopic focus on the highest and best use of water within the state. This work evaluates the results of Idaho’s view of water use in the state from
5
1950-2019 and provides a fresh perspective to policy makers, water managers, and facilitators across the state to positively impact the future of Idaho’s water conflict.
HISTORY OF WATER IN IDAHO
What we experience today is a manifestation of values and actions from the past. To accurately identify and positively impact conflict we must understand as much of the context as possible (Lederach
2003). The critical aspect of context is stakeholder values and identities. (Jarvis 2014) Geologic, hydraulic, and social history of Idaho has shaped Idahoans values and identity. Idaho starts it social history very similarly to many other PNW states, but its isolation caused it to diverge from the trajectory of its neighbors. Idaho has not had to face Oregon’s serious discussions about alternative uses of water and as such, a form of exuberant groupthink has guided a homogenous approach to water use in the state and on the SRP. This ultimately delayed significant water conflict until more recently in Idaho’s history, but the belief system has caused significant and long-term conflict now and into the future as the state wrestles with changing values and identity.
Hydrogeologic History
Idaho is located centrally in the Rocky Mountains. Much of the state is rugged, mountainous, terrain which was created from a combination of volcanic activity, pressure from the Pacific Tectonic
Plate subducting under the North American Plate, and by major hydraulic actions over the same time
(BLM 2020). Lakes punctuate the landscape and rivers run throughout the state and 86% of the state
6 drains into the Snake River Basin (SRB) (Idaho DEQ 2004). The southern portion of the state is characterized by a large river plain, the SRP.
Figure 1 geographical representation of the Snake River Basin and the Snake River Plain within the Basin. Image generated with Google Earth Pro (May 2020)
The SRP is a broad crescent shaped plain that generally runs east to west from Wyoming to
Oregon in south-central Idaho. The SRP began to form about 16 million years ago as the southwestern portion of Idaho sat over the Yellowstone Hot Spot (Bonnichsen 2016). The hotspot created tremendous volcanic activity in the Owyhee Mountains and subsequently cut a volcanic swath through the Idaho mountains as the North American Plate moved southwest. Lake Idaho was a 200-mile-long lake stretching from present day Twin Falls to Oregon about 9M-2M years ago. The lake deposited substantial amounts of sediment establishing much of the plain as we experience it today (BLM 2020).
7
Figure 2 geographical representation of the Snake River Plain. Image generated with Google Earth Pro (May 2020)
There are two geologic features which make agriculture on the plain very productive. The surrounding area’s volcanic activity and hydraulic processes which formed the plain left a layer of fine volcanic sediment that are rich in nutrients. This lead to alternating hydraulic-sediment-volcanic deposits which created an ideal structure for water suspension and transmission (DeGrey, Miller and
Link 2010) The Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA) has a high recharge and transmissivity rate which makes it one of the most unique and productive aquifers in the world (The Nature Conservancy
2014). More porous basalt generally sits atop older, less porous basalts acting as a catch basin, gravity pulls the water from the high point near St. Anthony to the low point west of Twin Falls where much of the water exits the aquifer at Thousand Springs and reenters the Snake River. These hydrogeologic characteristics have made an exceptional environment for agricultural development on the plain.
Idahoans have a central connection with the agriculture-based economy which defines the SRP.
Agriculture on the SRP accounts for an estimated $4B annually (Marvel 2016).
8
Figure 3 ESPA graphical representation for perspective on the size and location of the aquifer. Social History
Indigenous tribes have lived on the SRP for thousands of years. Anglo-settlement and development of the plain began in the mid-19th century (Slaughter 2012). Settlers were moving west to
Oregon in search of new economic and social opportunities. Gold was found on the Clearwater River to the north and in the Owyhee Mountains to the west in the early 1860’s which spurred a migration of miners to the area (Harrington 2012). With the growth of mining towns in the surrounding mountains, miners needed logistical centers to sell and buy goods, the SRP was a perfect location for these centers as the soil was fertile for growing crops and raising animals and many rivers in the area readily supported agricultural ventures that were used to support the miners (Slaughter 2012).
The Idaho water allocation process developed the similarly to most western states. The miners, and later farmers and ranchers, used the same prior appropriation water model that was used in
Colorado, Utah, and California (Harrington 2012). They realized that water resources were not consistent in the arid desert of the west. The first person to divert and put the water to “beneficial use” maintained a superior guarantee, or “right” to their water (Harrington 2012). All water that was claimed later in time, was subordinated to the senior, older, water rights. When the resource was constrained
9 by dry summer months, the most junior water rights would forfeit their water right, to senior water rights. This water model offered protection which supported the miners and entrepreneur’s devilment of the region with the understanding the lifeblood of their mining claim, farm, or ranch, would not be infringed upon based on their water right seniority. It can be said that prior appropriation was the foundation for the settling of the western United States.
By 1890 Idaho applied for statehood and was accepted into the Union. The Carey Act of 1894 was a tool used by the federal government to hasten the settlement of the west. The Carey Act enabled the Federal Government to give up to 1 million acres of land to any state who developed an irrigation district and enticed farmers to farm the land within 12 months of completion of the irrigation system
(Phil Roberts 2013). The Reclamation Act of 1902 created the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), an agency that was allowed to use Federal funds for water projects aimed at “reclaiming” western desert land and making it habitable by society (Bureau of Reclamation 2000). Idaho has received about 60% of all lands distributed under the Carey Act and is the only state to still have active development projects under the act (Petrich, et al. 2002). The Carey Act and the Reclamation Act were the two critical pieces of the national legislature that opened the flood gates to unseen productivity and eventual conflict on the SRP.
Milner Dam and its associated Twin Falls Canal Company, just East of Twin Falls on the Snake
River was one of the first Carey Act water projects in Idaho in 1905 (Yost 2003). When the gates were opened for the first time, water filled 1000 miles of canals to the south of the dam. The BOR’s Minidoka project came shortly after in 1907 feeding water to farms and ranches to the north of the Snake River in the same area (Bureau of Reclamation 2015). Canal systems were expanded and eventually supplied water from these two projects to eventually irrigate 1.6 million acres of farmland (agclassroom.org
2013). Data began to be collected on water quantity and quality by agencies like the BOR. The inefficient earthen canals allowed water to seep back into the ground, recharging the ESPA. In 1952 the
BOR had a planning factor that 30% of all water diverted would be lost to seepage (Lancaster 1952). It is
10 estimated that by 1952 the canal seepage on the SRP had added an additional 17,000,000 acre ft of water to the ESPA (Vincent, Patton and Wylie 2016).
Figure 4 ESPA performance from 1912-2014 as measured by outflow at Thousand Springs. Chart built by IDWR and obtained at: https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org?
The canal systems and mechanized agriculture facilitated a rapid growth of agriculture on the
SRP by mid-20th Century. During the second half of the same century, exporting food to support the spread of democracy and capitalism drove farmers, manufacturers, engineers, and scientists to produce more food with less resources. By the 1960’s people like Frank Zybach had perfected the pivot irrigation system where water is pumped from a canal or from a groundwater well, into sprinkler system that is mounted on wheels and pivots in a circle watering crops automatically (Mader and Hays 2010). These engineered solutions meant that wells could be drilled where surface water could not go, and new, junior, water rights enabled farming to rapidly expand on the plain. An aquifer is a difficult thing to manage because you cannot definitively measure it and you cannot see they dynamic nature of it in the
11 earth (Jarvis 2014). Relying only on something like well depths (in in the ESPA’s case, flow rates at
Thousand Springs) to determine the “health” of an aquifer is problematic and has the potential to inaccurately convey the status of an aquifer. The pumping began draw down the ESPA at a significant rate because groundwater and surface water were not managed conjunctively. Idaho did not keep an accurate account of how much water was being extracted from the ESPA and the Idaho Department of
Water Resources (IDWR) estimates that about 13M acre feet1 (AF) of water stored in the ESPA was used from 1952-2017.
Although Idaho’s constitution outlined the creation of a central agency that managed water resources, by the 1970s Idaho’s legislature realized that the agency needed to take a more prominent role in water management and in 1974 the IDWR was created with more authority (IDWR 2015). The predominant water conflict in Idaho between surface water users and groundwater users presented itself in 1977 as a complaint to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission about Idaho Power’s water right at
Swan Falls Dam and manifested in the Swan Falls Agreement of 1984. As part of the Swan Falls
Agreement, the IDWR was tasked with completing a comprehensive adjudication of all water rights on the Snake River. By the mid-1980s, IDWR had a better understanding of the interconnectivity of groundwater surface water on the plain and identified that more water was being extracted from the
ESPA than was being recharged. By 1992, IDWR issued a moratorium on all new water rights on the
Snake River which is still in effect today (Vincent, Patton and Wylie 2016). The moratorium seems to have caused little disruption or conflict on the plain. Searches of the Idaho Statesman and the Lewiston
Tribute archives produced no articles related to the “1992 Snake River Moratorium” as it pertains to the
SRP. One water advisory board at the time and in the impacted area “was divided” but stated “At a time when all water sources are drying up, it is hard to rationalize bringing new land under irrigation.”
1 An acre foot of water is equal to about 325,851 gallons or is the volume of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. (Kyle's Converter) (Water Education Foundation)
12
(Deseret News 1992) As the 20th century ended, the SRP water system devolved into a deadlock between senior surface water users and junior groundwater users. Throughout the whole process a focus was maintained on the maximum use of water for agriculture on the plain.
Conflict History:
Homogeneity of the socio-economic-political structure of the SRP has generated a myopic view of water use and has largely avoided conflict over water. Since 1950 there has been three major events
(Hells Canyon High Dam proposal; the Teton Dam Failure; and The Snake River Basin Adjudication) which have shaped and reinforced this unified set of collaborative values on the SRP. In the Early 1950’s the
Federal Government proposed the Hells Canyon High Dam as the largest dam in the world (Brooks
2006). Even the Army Corps of Engineers had trouble arguing the benefits of using the water for hydropower, over agriculture on the SRP, when they defended their bid to build the Hells Canyon High
Dam to Congress in 1950. They said “The economy of the Central Snake River sub-basin is dependent on agriculture development, which in turn is dependent on ample water for irrigation. Storage or diversion of water for agriculture uses is detrimental to the present or future downstream power development because of the resultant reduction in downstream flows.” (Brooks 2006) When the Army Corps of
Engineers assessed the potential conflict between the consumptive use of agriculture and the non- consumptive use of hydroelectric power, they accurately predicted the current conflict which has constrained the plain.
In the Hells Canyon High Dam conflict, the source of conflict was not about the water use. The conflict was centered on the ideology of the federal government stealing water resources from farmers and ranchers. Idahoans focus was directed to an external entity, outside of the plain, and allowed the water users to rally behind a common enemy, reinforcing their common beliefs and values. Idaho’s political leaders sided with the farmers and ranchers so Governor Jordan worked to defeat the High Dam
13 by entering into an agreement with Idaho Power to instead build three smaller, private, dams that would provide the same amount of cheap power that would turn irrigation pumps on the SRP (Brooks
2006). Gov. Jordan’s agreement with Idaho Power contained a subordination clause where Idaho
Power’s water rights for the Hells Canyon Complex could be subordinated future development
(agricultural development) upstream on the SRP. This success against the Federal Government galvanized the SRP water users around the idea that even the Federal Government could not tell them what to do with their water and that there would always be enough water to support greater expansion of agriculture on the plain (Brooks 2006).
The second event, although much more impactful to the people and landscape, seems to be an afterthought in the history of water conflict on the plain. On June 5th, 1976, the BOR’s Teton Dam was being filled for the first time. The dam failed and the resulting torrent of water destroyed three cities and 11 people lost their lives. It is regarded as the worst man-made disaster in Idaho history, ultimately costing an estimated $2B in repairs (Ramseth and Clark 2016). This conflict physically destroyed lives and property when the dam failed. As tragic and devastating as this physical and social conflict was, the
Idaho Water Users’ Association issued a resolution 6 months later asking that the dam be rebuilt
(McDonald 2006). The loss of life, and the destruction of the city was tremendous but it was seemingly thought of as part of living on the plain and those things happen to those who rely on water to irrigate crops and water cattle (McDonald 2006).
Within one day of the dam’s failure, over 65 canal systems were damaged and over 427,000 acres of crops could not be watered (Stamm 1976). This would initially appear to be a catastrophic disaster but instead, contractors were mobilized from across the state and across the country and within
10 days, 75% of the crops had access to water and by July 5th, only one month later, 98% of the cropland had water service again. Not only was that a huge recovery effort but 22 contracts were expeditiously awarded federal and state contracts earning those contractors $2.5M. The greatest man-made disaster
14 in Idaho’s history does not seem to have negative social or economic impact on the SRP, especially when observed through Idaho’s GDP from 1976-1979, it rose every year.
1976 1977 1978 1979 GDP (In Millions) $856,983.00 $883,469.00 $910,690.00 $932,627.00 https://apps.bea.gov/ Table 1 Idaho's GDP from 1976 through 1979 as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
What was labeled a disaster, and was for those who lost their lives and livelihoods, appears to be an economic windfall for Idaho and an opportunity for modernizing and updating local communities and infrastructure for those communities impacted at the cost of the Federal Government.
It is important to understand how these two, major events in the Snake River Basin shaped the perspective of the water users going into the Swan Falls Agreement. Agriculture and hydropower are the two significant uses of water resources on the SRP. Agricultural has always held its supremacy on the SRP as the highest and best use of the Snake River. Agriculture is a common objective and identity which the people in the basin have latched onto (Lovin 2017). Malcom Gladwell’s analysis of J. T.
MacCurdy’s work on the psychology of near and remote misses in WWII is directly applicable. MacCurdy studied the psychological impacts of German bombing on the British population. He grouped the impacted population into three groups, those killed, those with near misses (who might have been injured or were directly impacted by the bombing), and those with remote misses (who may have heard the explosions but were not directly impacted by the bombing). MacCurdy’s work found the opposite of what was expected, that the near and remote misses should have had a negative impact on the psyche of the Londoners, but instead it bolstered their outlook on the situation and did not cause panic or a desire to capitulate. Gladwell aptly points out that near misses and especially remote misses, are social experiences which can embolden humans on a set course of action despite the seemingly traumatic or negative impacts of the experience (Gladwell 2013).
15
The federal government’s thwarted plan to steal water resources with the Hells Canyon High
Dam was a direct attack on the SRP way of life. This fight was fought from Boise by the Governor and
Idaho Power, not by the people at heart of the SRP. For the SRP this was a remote miss. Teton Dam was a direct hit for 11 people, a near miss for a few thousand people, but for tens of thousands on the plain, it was a remote miss as they saw the news, pitched in to help, but were not directly impacted. If anything, communities impacted by the disaster felt a stronger sense of community for working through the crisis together. Both events left the people of the SRP stronger and more resolute in their way of life, the use of water, and their future on the plain. Little did people on SRP know, that the ideological hegemony, manifested from their experience, was eroding social and economic resiliency.
The first two events shaped the way SRP communities approached the third event which has had the largest impact on the plain. The event came from a small inconspicuous dam, Swan Falls, on the
Snake River just south of Boise. The conflict erupted, seemingly out of nowhere in 1977 when a few rate payers and Idaho Senator John Peavey filed a complaint with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission on the grounds that it was not guarding its water right at Swan Falls Dam and ensuring the cheapest rates for its customers (Jones 2016). Idaho Power tried to have the complaint dismissed as they had an existing agreement with the Idaho from the Hells Canyon High Dam event which was believed to subordinate their water rights in and outside of the Hells Canyon Dam Complex (Strong and Orr 2016).
After years of litigation and in an unprecedented move, the Idaho Supreme Court sided with rate payers and in 1982 ruled that Idaho Power had not protected its customers, and that the previous agreement with the state was not legally applicable to any dams outside of the Hells Canyon Complex (Jones 2016).
In other words, Idaho Power could be held liable for not protecting their water rights at any of their dams outside of their Hells Canyon Dam agreement. This caused Idaho Power to file suit and place a water call against over 7500 subordinate upstream water rights across the SRP, demanding they be curtailed to ensure the company’s water rights were fulfilled (Strong and Orr 2016). The conflict
16 escalated to a climax as the lawyers and the legislators tried to force a solution from 1982-1984. In order to avoid a catastrophic economic failure of the SRP’s economy, Idaho’s governor and attorney general stepped in to broker a peace deal, outside of the courts, between the irrigators and Idaho Power
(Idaho State Bar Water Law Section and Randy Stapilus 2014). The 10-page Swan Falls Agreement addresses six major points:
1. The original water right at the Swan Falls Dam (8400 Cubic Feet per Second ‘cfs’) had not been
realistic for a long time so it was agreed to adjust the instream flow to 3900 cfs during the
irrigation season and 5600 cfs during the non-irrigation season. These numbers “Allowed a
significant amount of further development of water uses without violating the minimum
streamflow” (Jones 2016).
2. New development (water rights) should be scrutinized against the long-term objectives of the
state. “Priority should be given to projects which promote Idaho’s family farming tradition and
which will create jobs” (Jones 2016).
3. The state should start a complete adjudication of the Snake River Basin in Idaho. There would
be no way to understand if this agreement was even sustainable without understanding how
much water, and at what priority was appropriated in the basin.
4. The state should work to establish an effective water market to allow for the best and highest
use of water when all the water was appropriated in the basin. They recognized that the basin
would soon be over-appropriated, and solutions should be sought to facilitate the easy and legal
transaction of water. Additionally, the agreement pointed out that conjunctive management of
surface water and groundwater should be explored (Jones 2016).
5. The state should fund hydraulic and economic studies to determine the best way to augment
flows in the Snake River, like instream storage and aquifer recharge projects.
17
6. Clarification that proceeds from the sale of any hydropower water rights would go to rate
payers and not to stockholders.
While the agreement averted the crisis at hand, it avoided the root cause of the problem, the over allocation of water on the SRP. The agreement did advocate for a general adjudication of approximately
150,000 water rights on the SRP, but it overshadowed that objective by stating the overall goal was to sustain and grow agriculture and other economic ventures on the plain (Jones 2016).
The Legislature and the Idaho Supreme Court concurred with the agreement’s proposed Snake
River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) and mandated that IDWR adjudicate all 150,000 water rights on the SRP because the IDWR could not accurately explain how much water was appropriated on the SRP (Idaho
State Bar Water Law Section and Randy Stapilus 2014). The Swan Falls Agreement, while averting a crisis, only addressed the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.
As the adjudication process began to unfold and as IDWR began scrutinizing water rights in the
1990’s, two main water user groups coalesced around surface water use and groundwater use. Seven surface water irrigation districts, generally with senior water rights, have come together as the Surface
Water Coalition (SWC). Individuals, businesses, and municipalities have come together in a much larger organization called the Idaho Groundwater Appropriators (IGWA). The group consists of groundwater users with generally junior water rights. Since the SRBA, the persistent threat from of
Figure 5(Left) IGWA members on the SRP, (Right) SWC members on the SRP. Images from IDWR.
18 senior water rights users placing a water call on the junior rights drives the new narrative about water conflict and collaboration on the SRP (IDWR 2017). The conflict that has simmered for about 20 years stems from the State of Idaho over allocating water rights on the SRP.
Most of the recent conflict has been centered around the 2005 SWC’s water call on the IGWA’s users. After 10 years of negotiations between the two groups and the IDWR, it was agreed the IGWA would self-curtail their usage by 240,000 AF or about 13%. This spreads the burden to all users in the coalition and limits the threat to any one user. The incentive to the groundwater users is that the IDWR has promised to recharge the ESPA by 250,000 AF annually by 2023 (IDWR 2017). The goal of the agreement is to stabilize the ESPA, which should reduce the risk of breaching the agreed minimum instream flows on the Snake River at the Swan Falls Dam.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER RIVER BASINS
To understand if this homogenous view of water use is unique to the SRP, we need to compare it with other river basins within the PNW. The Klamath River Basin (KRB) and the Deschutes River Basin
(DRB) have often surfaced in my research about water conflict and they are often in the media for similar conflict to the ESPA over water shortages for an agriculture based economy. These river basins were chosen because of their presence in the media, readily accessible information about their history, and the acceptance that they are representative generally of river basins in the PNW. This comparison is by no mean comprehensive and is only designed to reinforce the uniqueness of the SRB and the SRP.
One physical characteristic must be pointed out prior to the comparison. The SRB is larger than the
Klamath River Basin (KRB) and the Deschutes River Basin (DRB) combined. The SRB is not viewed as a singular basin when discussing water management, but broken into many sub-basins, and by the SRP.
For the purposes of a more accurate comparison a focused area of the SRB, the SRP, will be used which is more comparable with the other river basins.
19
Figure 6 Geographical representation and comparison of the SRB, SRP, KRB, and the DRB, built with Google Earth Pro (May 2020) Klamath River Basin Comparison
400 miles south west of the SRP lies the KRB. While it is much smaller, it follows a generally similar chronology including federal treaties with Native American Tribes mid-19th century, followed by the BOR building dams at the turn of the 20th century with the promise of making the desert bloom for anyone willing to move to the area and start farming (Water Education Foundation 2020) . There are some major differences, however.
20
Figure 7 Geographical representation and comparison of the SRP and the KRB, built with Google Earth Pro (May 2020)
The Federal Government entered a treaty with the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooshin tribes in
1864 creating a reservation on the upper Klamath lake with perpetual hunting and fishing rights whereas in the SRP, the Fort Hall Reservation water rights are for irrigation (The State of Idaho 1990). In
1908 the first federal waterfowl refuge was created on Klamath Lower Lake prior to any major state projects, greatly restricting Oregon’s and other users’ use of the water (Oregon Wild 2019). In 1957 the
BOR’s Klamath project was completed but Oregon, California and Congress entered into an agreement to settle the first series of water disputes. On the SRP, conflict is internal to the state and is not an interstate conflict. From the 1970’s until 2000, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) coupled with the
Klamath tribes regaining their sovereignty, put extreme pressure on the system with multiple species being listed. In Idaho, Idaho Power’s Hells Canyon Dam Complex was built before the ESA mandated fish passage. Additionally, Idaho Falls is the natural terminus for any anadromous fish attempting to move upstream so the majority of the SRP is not subject to the same ESA considerations as in the KRB. A drought in 2001 was the tipping point for the KRB and the BOR turned off the water to 90% of all farmers to protect the endangered fish and subsequently causing a tremendous amount of conflict and collaboration. The water conflict in the Klamath Basin has remained steady for the last 20 years with many stakeholders arguing for the best use of water; hydropower, aquatic species protection, waterfowl
21 protection, irrigators, Native American Tribes, and recreators (Martin and Atkinson 2015). In Idaho, the conflict has remained steady for about the same time, but everyone agrees the best use of the water is for irrigation, they are just arguing who gets to use it.
Deschutes River Basin
Three hundred miles northwest of the SRP, the DRB is another basin like the SRP. They both share the same arid climate and roughly similar geologic characteristics. Dams on the Deschutes were built by private entities and the BOR much like the SRP over the same general timeline for power generation and irrigation (Sahl 2020). The variety of water uses in the DRB caused the BOR to consider the impacts of multiple uses of water in the basin as early as the 1960’s. Much like the KRB, the ESA and tribal considerations have driven a large part of the narrative in the DRB but again, the SRP has not had to confront these same issues. By the 1990’s all of the surface water was allocated and by 1995 a moratorium was placed on all groundwater permits in the DRB (Deschutes River Conservancy 2006).
While this is like the moratorium on the Snake River in 1992, the reaction to the moratorium was not similar. By 2004 a diverse coalition of water users representing many uses of water in the DRB came together to develop a sustainable solution that balanced uses and needs (Aylward and Newton 2006).
This has grown into a diverse coalition of water users who are collaboratively approaching the complex problem and developing relationships and resiliency. Conversely on the SRP, in 2005 when a drought impacted water quantities on the SRP, the SWC placed a water call against subordinate groundwater users causing significant conflict for 9 years until the IDWR settled the conflict.
22
Figure 8 Geographical representation and comparison of the SRP and the DRB, built with Google Earth Pro (May 2020) River Basin Comparison Analysis:
What is apparent when comparing these three river basins is the varied uses and values of the water and how those values have created three quite different approaches to sustaining the basins.
When comparing all event types from Felser’s work and this work, there are many more event types, which indicates the water event root-cause within each research database, in Oregon. Looking more specifically at the five largest event types, it initially appears very similar. One large difference appeared however, when evaluating events in this research. About 29% of the events in this research are specifically related to water quantity and most of those events were related to conjunctive events with surface and groundwater. The water quantity event type did not fit neatly within one or two of Fesler’s event type definitions so a new event type was required for this research (identified in blue, Table 2).
This indicates that Idaho has an exceptional aspect of their relationship with their water.
23
Table 2 Comparison of event types between Kristel Fesler's research and this research. Event type is an analysis of the root cause of the water event in the database.
All three basins have sovereign Native American Tribes with federal treaties, which guarantee access to water. In the Klamath and the Deschutes basins, the primary purpose of the Native Tribe’s water rights are to sustain the fisheries which support the Tribe’s cultural heritage, economy and the river’s ecosystem. In Idaho however, all 22 of the ground and surface water rights for the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribe on the Fort Hall Reservation are for irrigation (The State of Idaho 1990). The Klamath
Basin is home to six naturally occurring wildlife refuges which all have their own federally mandated uses for water which are senior to most other water rights. The three Snake River wildlife refuges are largely a byproduct of BOR and Idaho Power dams which have created the reservoirs and marshes for the refuges.
In the KRB and the DRB, the multitude of water uses and users forced the communities to come together, recognize that the water was over-appropriated, and develop a collaborative process to reach consensus about the highest and best use of water for the community. Kristel Fesler found that about
80% of the water conflict in Oregon (inside her research timeline) was related to water use disagreement, while only 20% was related to water rights and priority (Fesler 2007). Each of the basins have developed a collaborative approach to managing the problem of over-appropriation. The Klamath and the Deschutes however have recognized that concessions must be made or else the system will fail.
In the KRB, the stakeholders collectively concluded that the hydro-electric dams put too much strain on the limited resource and have agreed to remove them in support of the rest of the group’s priorities
(Peterson 2016). In the DRB, irrigators have initiated tremendous work to increase transmission
24 efficiencies to return flows back to the rivers for fish and groundwater recharge (Aylward and Newton
2006). In
In Idaho, conversely, all parties have realized that the SRP is over appropriated but because most stakeholders are protecting their own equities, there is no serious talk about permanent concessions. The SRBA process was completed in 2014 and was touted as one of the fastest, and most successful adjudications in U.S. history (Stapilus 2014). During the adjudication process federal attorneys repeatedly pointed out the following:
[The speed and efficiency of the SRBA] has been Idaho’s collection of adjudication parties and
attorneys who were willing to cooperate and trust each other enough not to challenge the
process in fundamental ways that might have ground it to a halt or shut it down. Just that sort of
thing has happened in other states (Stapilus 2014).
It makes sense that there were no challenges, in a groupthink system where everyone is myopically focused on the greater good of the economic development of the plain, no one is willing to challenge the status quo.
An important characteristic of the SRP which has prevented economic and hydraulic collapse is the tremendous storage capacity of the ESPA. It has been, and is currently being used as, a water bank where water can be stored and withdrawn when needed. It was consistently overdrawn for over 30 years from 1950 until the 1980’s before the balance became a problem for the SRP. The productivity of the ESPA is a stark contrast to both river basins and reinforces Idaho’s myopic view about water on the
SRP. Idaho’s failure to take a more collaborative approach to managing all water uses like the KRB and the DRB will severely limit the resiliency on the SRP. Additionally, if the SRP does not maximize its banking opportunities within the ESPA the risk of increased conflict and water insecurity will increase in the future.
25
METHODS
Since conflict is a social experience over time, it was decided that the source of the data for the research would come from a social record of human interactions over water in Idaho. To compare water conflict types across a state, a system had to be developed that will capture data and represent it over large spans of time. Something like the adjudication of water rights within a water basin can take a great deal of time. Montana has been generally adjudicating all of their water rights in some form for over 130 years (Bryan 2015). The only social media mediums that spanned the length of time observed for this research were court records, written experiences (books), and newspaper articles from newspapers which have been saved. While recorded radio broadcasts and news coverage were also considered, the return was not determined to be worth the investment of time and effort it would take to find and review.
A number of books address water conflict in Idaho, among them are: Complexity in a Ditch: Bringing Water to the Idaho Desert (2017) Through the Waters: An Oral History of the Snake River Basin Adjudication (2014) A Little Dam Problem (2016) The Teton Dam Disaster (2006) Public Power, Private Dams: The Hells Canyon High Dam Controversy (2006)
The number of books on water conflict are surprising because Idaho is relatively void of water conflict on the scope and scale that other states in the PNW are. When observing the content of these books however, it becomes less surprising because they focus on the three major conflictive events in Idaho which have shaped Idaho’s relationship with water: the Hells Canyon High Dam, the Teton Dam Disaster, and the over appropriation of water on the SRP. They are proportionally scaled in their topics with the most being written on Idaho’s largest water conflict between ground and surface water users on the
SRP. Because the books listed above are so focused, and because there were not enough books on other conflict in Idaho, these books are used as background but could not be used for event datums for the research database.
26
Constructing a Research Data Base
The research process was largely influenced by Fesler’s approach to her research. Fesler assembled a research database which would help her understand how water conflict events and social data correlate with each other and tell a more accurate story about water conflict and potential solutions across Oregon. This research accomplishes a similar objective however the focus was on the comparison between groundwater and surface water in Idaho and the SRP. The purpose of this research was to build a database of water conflict events from 1950 through 2019 which could then be compared against social, political, economic, and other characteristics of Idaho at similar times to better understand correlations, trends and potential causation of water conflict and resolution.
Data Sources
The data collection plan originally called for water interaction events to be gathered primarily from newspapers in Idaho, and then expounded upon through court records. As the research began it was quickly understood that the work required to collect this volume of data far exceeded the scope and timeline of this project. The plan was modified to collect data from only two of the longest standing newspapers in the State of Idaho, the Idaho Statesman, and the Lewiston Tribune. The Idaho
Statesman’s records unfortunately were only stored on microfilm and were only available to review in person at the Boise Idaho Public Library. Due to geographical limitations, and project timelines the scope was adjusted again to use only the online archives of the Lewiston Tribune. This scope still meant that 4,266 news articles were reviewed which yielded 388 event datums from 1950 thru 2019.
27
Event Search Methodology
To control the scope of the project and prevent it from creeping to an unmanageable level, exact definitions and parameters were created at the beginning of the project. Strict use of the keyword search method to collect articles narrowly focused the articles that were potentially relevant to the research project. While this focused the datum collection effort, this search methodology decreased the depth of perspective in the database (Maney and Oliver 2001). This was confirmed during this research and adopting a broader look at specific events or years would have yielded much deeper understanding of a particular series of events. This was apparent when in 1982, the search yielded no articles about the catastrophic Idaho Supreme Court ruling on a water rights conflict centered around Swan Falls Dam.
Had I opened the search aperture at this juncture I would have yielded many additional articles and datums which would more clearly articulate the trajectory of that conflict.
The methodology was refined over many months testing and evaluating what would produce the most applicable data. Search terms like “groundwater+conflict” or “water+conflict” were very restrictive and returned very few articles, (05) total. When utilizing the term “water” the online search engine produced 241,447 articles which was too many for the project. After making and testing several lists of terms unsuccessfully, I took a step back to identify the terms that were in each list that I was trying to narrow in on. Three terms were settled upon which adjusted the search just wide enough to capture an appropriate number of events. The Lewiston Tribunes archives were searched for these key words:
“groundwater” “ground+water” “surface+water” Once the search terms were decided, a feasibility analysis was conducted to ensure that I was keeping the project within scope and on my timeline. It was determined that a sampling of 25% of the total articles would be an adequate sample and would yield 1,066 datums for the project. As the research
28 began however, it was found that many of the 4,266 articles were not relevant to project. These newspaper articles were usually: notices of claim to a water right, property sale listings, or duplicate articles. It is estimated that about 1,800 to 1,900 of the total articles reviewed fell into this category and were not useful to the project. Another 1,000-1,100 articles were about water events in other states which were also not relevant to the research. The relevant 388 articles that were successfully filtered out of the total search equaled about 9% of the total articles evaluated. After screening each article and confirming that it was an article that took place within Idaho and did describe a water related event which could be evaluated in this research, it was added to the database.
Event Definition
For this research, an event was defined as: an interaction between stakeholders over a water resource located within Idaho, as reported in an Idaho newspaper or court document. This definition was like Fesler’s to ensure the data could easily be compared. A series of interactions captured in the press would represent a series of events which can be easily linked by county or by water basin to track the progression of the series. In some cases, there were a series of related events that spanned multiple decades on the Clearwater, Palouse, and Snake Rivers. In the case of the SRP, there are events which are related over 7 decades.
Event Classification:
With the original intent to build a grand timeline or at least some type of GIS-based storyboard, the data were collected to be represented in GIS. Additionally, the data needed to be sorted into event series as they would relate within a river basin or county, to track the progression of conflict over time.
Although the scope of this project was condensed, colleting the events this way was still relevant. The following categories were used to sort and filter each event:
29
Article # Event Year Date of Event Event Category - Surface Water (SW) - Ground Water (GW) - Conjunctive “both” (ALL) Conflict Spectrum (-5 – 0 – 5) River Basin County City Event Summary
Data Categories
The data needed to be sorted to compare groundwater (GW) and surface water (SW) and answer the hypothesis’. As the database was being built, it became clear that there were three distinct categories of water conflict in the data which pertained to this project. The original plan accounted for groundwater and surface water. The new category that appeared in 1956 was the Conjunctive Water
(CW) category. This third category defines an event where the article presented GW and SW as interconnected in some form. This change helped to understand why there were so few SW events in the more recent data. Most-likely the stakeholders began to realize that it is difficult to discuss SW without addressing the associated effects on GW and so stakeholders began to stop addressing SW events and more accurately began to address CW events.
30
Spatial and Temporal Scope
For this research all the events take place inside the state of Idaho. The SRB drains approximately 87% of Idaho (roughly 73,000 square miles) (Idaho DEQ 2004). All but a few events would fall inside the SRB so additional levels of differentiation were added to account for Snake River tributaries. There are 4 Water Regions and 98 Administrative River Basins in Idaho. Trying to build a database for all administrative basins would yield a great deal of erroneous data that would not NUMBER OF RIVER BASIN EVENTS Snake 150 All Basins 120 Clearwater 52 Palouse 20 Boise 15 Spokane 10 Salmon 4 Couer D' Alene 4 Big Elk Creek 2 Payette 2 Blackfoot 2 Bear 2 Clark Fork 1 Big Lost River 1 Wood 1 Raft 1 Henery's Fork 1 17 388 Table 3 (Left) Idaho's 4 Water Regions and 98 Administrative River Basins (https://idwr.maps.arcgis.com/) and (Right) the number of events by River Basin from the research data. apply to the research project. The research data were instead added to each river basin as it was encountered in the newspaper articles. If the event included multiple river basins (mostly around
Lewiston as the Clearwater and Snake rivers converge) the river basin which was more representative of the event connected to the article, was used. The preponderance of Snake River events took place within the SRP. There are only 4 of the 150 events that take place around Lewiston so for the purposes of this research, the SRB is synonymous the SRP and the 4 events that took place around Lewiston will
31 be called out separately when necessary. Some events dealing with legislation, policy, or regulatory actions, impacted all river basins and those were categorized as “All.” In total, 16 river basins are individually represented in the research and all basins were referenced in 120 articles, Table 3.
For the purposes of this research, data were collected and filtered only from 1950 until 2019.
The primary purpose of this research was to analyze groundwater conflict in comparison with surface water conflict. Although there was limited groundwater pumping as early as the 1930’s, groundwater pumping generally became economical enough for most farmers about 1950 (Patton 2020). It was important to build a database that spanned the entire research timeframe because any length of time shorter than that would not tell the whole story. Something like the SRBA lasted some 27 years and adopting a shorter time would potentially miss out on complete event series or skew incomplete data.
What became clear in the data, is that water conflict in Idaho can be distinctly grouped into three distinct periods from 1950-1984, 1984-2000, and 2000-today, based on the conflict and collaboration themes within those timeframes.
Conflict-Collaboration Scale
Much effort was put into the specific definitions within this scale as it would be the tool through which the event database could be fully understood. The term collaboration was used in leu of other terms like cooperation because it conveys a sense of trust and vulnerability which is what builds consensus and resiliency. Conflict transformation in its basic form is a process by which we learn and understand context and the alternative values of other stakeholders. Through that learning process we build relationships and change our perspective, hopefully culminating in the development of a common objective or outcome. Conflict transformation through this lens requires the use of terms associated with learning. Karl A. Smith defines cooperative learning as working together to accomplish shared goals (Smith 1995). Joanne M. McInnerney and Tim S. Roberts describe collaborative learning as “a
32 method that implies working in a group of two or more to achieve a common goal, while respecting each individual’s contribution to the whole.” (McInnerney and Roberts 2004) While cooperation articulates the individualism, which can be a part of conflict transformation, the purpose of this research was to determine the level of collaboration which is a better measure of transformation capacity. The scale was then built with the ranking between 5 and -5, where 5 is the most collaborative achieving stewardship and -5 is the most conflictive with stakeholder negligence. Events which were seemingly void of collaboration and conflict were ranked as 0 or neutral.
Conflict scales like this have been used to build research data bases for water conflict around the world (Yoffe, Wolf and Giordano 2003). Yoffe, Wolf, and Giordano build a scale in 2003 that has had significant influence on this type research on water conflict around the world (Oregon State University
2020). While Yoffe et al. build a foundational conflict scale for international transboundary conflicts, the scope does not fit well within a more localized region, within a single country or water basin. Fesler also recognized this problem and had to adapt the conflict scale for her work in Oregon. Fesler’s adaptation was designed to identify the type and intensity of water conflict within Oregon’s borders (Fesler 2007).
For this research, the scale had to be modified because in both cases, the scale was incomplete and failed to include the complete range of conflict transformation.
33
CONFLICT SCALE Event occurs when stakeholder's values are similar 5 Stewardship enough to move beyond policy/legal management obligations, to some level of stewardship Event occurs when stakeholder's values are similar 4 Legal/Policy Agreement enough to participate in a collaborative policy process and willingly abide by the resulting policy Event occurs when stakeholder's values are similar 3 Physical Agreement enough to agree on a solution and take physical action to
Collaboration sustain agreement Event occurs when stakeholder's values are similar 2 Written Agreement enough to agree on a written solution Event occurs when stakeholder's values are similar 1 Verbal Agreement enough to verbally agree on solution Event occurs seemingly void of conflictive or collaborative 0 Neutral characteristics Event occurs when stakeholder's values are dissimilar -1 Verbal Disagreement enough they verbally disagree on solution Event occurs when stakeholder's values are dissimilar -2 Written Disagreement enough they are willing to document formally their differences Event occurs when stakeholder's values are dissimilar -3 Physical Disagreement enough they take physical action to show disagreement (i.e. demonstrations, town hall meetings) Conflict Event occurs when stakeholder's values are dissimilar Legal/Policy -4 enough they seek representation that will litigate or Disagreement influence policy discourse to obtain a selfish decision Event occurs when stakeholder's values are dissimilar -5 Negligence enough they take direct, illegal, actions against other stakeholders to obtain a selfish outcome for themselves. Table 4 Conflict Scale depicting the scale used to measure each event in the research database to determine the level of conflict or collaboration modified from Fesler’s conflict intensity coding.
Yoffe et al. and Fesler do not call out stewardship on the cooperative end of their conflict scales.
The Alliance for Water Stewardship defines water stewardship as “The use of water that is socially and culturally equitable, environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial, achieved through a stakeholder-inclusive process that involves site-and catchment-based actions.” (Alliance for Water
Stewardship 2019). Water stewardship is a key objective within most water conflict transformations, so the absence of stewardship seems to leave Yoffe et al. and Fesler’s conflict scales incomplete. At the opposite end of the scale, Fesler eludes to negligence but fails to call it out specifically. She omits blatant violation of laws and human or animal rights which often manifest in conflict stemming personal
34 or community values. It was predicted that events within this database would span the complete spectrum of conflict and so the conflict scale was modified to ensure the complete spectrum was represented. The complete spectrum was used for the events within the database.
Assumptions and Known Biases
The information used to build this research database was up to 70 years old and because it was newspaper articles instead of specific quantitative data, a set of assumptions was needed to the variables allowing for the further conduct this research. An assumption is defined as the following for this research: a supposition about historic events which are assumed to be accurate and reflective of the true social environment at the time of the event. Much like the Marine Corps’ planning process, all assumptions are: logical, realistic, and essential for completing analysis of these data (USMC 2016). The assumptions used in this research were required to appropriately scale the research to fit within the research timeline and budget. These assumptions were used for this research:
Newspaper articles accurately reflect the scale and scope of events across the entire
state within a given year. If there were few articles in the state or within a given water
basin, and timeframe, it was assumed that the number of articles indicated there was
relatively little conflict or collaboration during that timeframe.
Newspaper Articles generally represented the tone of conflict in that given year, county,
and river basin. Article authors and editors were generally representing the event they
were reporting on, telling the truth, and not manipulating the nature of the event. This
would cause inflating or deflating the conflict rating of events and could skew datums.
35
Despite the assumptions, there were known biases in the events which were caused by utilizing a single source for building the research database. These are the known biases in the data represented in the research:
Geographical proximity to events: Since the newspaper was in Lewiston Idaho there
were a disproportionate amount of local, small scale, events reported on in the vicinity
of Lewiston. When comparing small-scale events from other areas of the state, there is
limited to no reporting over any same period. From observations made during the
research, this is due to the proximity, and relevancy of the event to local readers. Had
multiple papers been used to collect the data, this would have likely been balanced by
local, small-scale events in other areas of the state. The large-scale events reported in
both areas would have corroborated large-scale events and accurately conveyed when
and where the largest number of events were in the state.
Missed Events: Another aspect of the research was missing events from the newspaper.
In November of 1982 the Idaho Supreme Court upended foundational precedence
within the state pertaining to water rights and initiated the most conflictive period of
water conflict in Idaho history (Jones 2016). There was not one mention of that conflict,
given the search criteria used, until September of 1983. This demonstrates that the
data could misrepresent the historic timeline of events. This is, however, a part of the
human experience and the selective nature of these events does represent the focus of
this newspaper and by extension, its readers which tells a great deal about multiple
perspectives in any human interaction.
Social Reporting Changes Over Time: An observation made while building the database
is that how events reported, changed over time. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, events were
reported in a relatively objective manner. In the 1980’s and 1990’s reporting seemed to
36
allow more emotion and became more opinionated. Overall, this still represents the
changing human experience with conflict over time and did not skew any datums
enough to cause concern for the integrity of the research.
DISCUSSION
Since the end objective was not clearly identified at the start of the project, it was not a direct path to completion. The circuitous route by which conclusions were derived was however exponentially valuable in developing the full context of Idaho’s relationship with water. As the database was being built there were some complications trying to develop multiple means of displaying the data. Ultimately the objective was to build a GIS hotspot map that would temporally and spatially represent conflictive events on a map of Idaho. This morphed into a storyboard of sorts as the datums take place over such a broad time horizon. After much analysis, it was determined that this GIS representation was worth the effort but was beyond the scope of this work and would require a follow-on project. Turning these data into a storyboard of sorts would be helpful for future documentaries or social media representations of groundwater and surface water conflict over time in Idaho.
Initial Data Observations
The decision to present the data statically on a graph meant that the project would be representing considerable amounts of data in a compact form. The graphs which represent these data took some time to build so an observer could understand what was being represented. When all data were compiled into the first graph (Table 7) it was a tremendous amount of information to process but some early trends emerged right away. There is significantly more conflict than collaboration represented in the database over this timeframe. There were too many geographically separated data
37 sets represented in one chart to really understand the nuances of conflict over time in Idaho, so the data needed to be broken down into more representative chunks. Another profound observation was the indication that there were three distinct periods of water conflict in the database with distinct characteristics:
1950-1984 Period One: Period one is characterized by a relative steady state of
moderate conflict across all three datum categories. Towards the end of this period a
wave of new federal environmental regulations caused a significant increase in the
number and severity of conflictive events across all three categories.
Table 5 Representation of the negative (increased conflict severity) trend at the end of Period One, likely due to systematic change from new Federal Regulations
1980-2000 Period Two: Period two is characterized by a substantial increase in the
number of events throughout this entire period. Additionally, the datums conveys large
swings between conflictive and collaborative events within short periods of time. This
was caused by the SRBA process and the subsequent moratorium on all new water
rights within the SRB.
2000-2019 Period Three: Period three is characterized by the establishment of a new
conflict cycle where conflict slowly builds on a roughly 5-10-year cycle. There is a
38
culminating series of events within that cycle where stakeholders work to find
resolution and the cycle starts again. Because this period is so new only one cycle is
discernable. If this cycle normalizes the second iteration of this cycle should culminate
within the next 2-3 years. This cycle is believed to represent the end of Idaho’s
groupthink about water appropriation on the Snake River. The cycle also demonstrates
the over appropriation of water on the SRP and the exertion of power by senior water
right holders.
Table 6 Representation of Period Three of the database which depicts the new conflict cycle which has emerged after Period Two
39
Period One Period Two Period Three
1964: Wilderness Act 1965: Solid Waste Disposal Act 1976: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 1970: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1972: Clean Water Act (CWA) 1987: Water Quality Act (WQA) 1973: Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1974: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 1980: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Table 7 Cumulative Research Data from 1950-2019 with Database Periods and a graphical representation of Federal environmental regulations implemented over the same time frame
40
Data Segregation Using the initial observations of the database and the subsequent evaluation of data sets by river basin in Table 3, the data were broken down into the three largest sets of similar data by River
Basin, or across the entire state. The purpose of breaking down the data served two purposes.
Primarily it served to separate data sets into smaller regions which could better represent conflict and collaboration over time with the same relative group of stakeholders. Additionally, this served to compare data from different regions of the state to confirm if the initial observations were isolated to the SRB or if they existed across the state. The largest data set was the SRB with 150 events (146 in the
SRP). The second largest set of data was the Statewide data set with 120 events. This data represented policy and regulations which impacted all river basins. The third largest data set was the Clearwater
River Basin (CRB) with 52 events.
Snake River Basin (Table 8): The SRB more accurately the (SRP) accounted for the most
events in the database so it was no surprise that the data matched the cumulative data
and corroborated the initial observations made with the cumulative data.
Statewide Data (Table 9): The Statewide data was generally the same as the cumulative
data and corroborated the initial observations made with the cumulative data.
Clearwater River Basin (Table 10): The CRB had much less data than either of the other
two data sets but it still generally represented the same trends as the cumulative data
and corroborated the initial observations made with the cumulative data.
41
Table 8Snake River Basin water event data from 1950-2019
42
Table 9 Statewide water event data from 1950-2019
43
Table 10 Clearwater River Basin water event data from 1950-2019
44
Data Analysis Comparison The initial approach to evaluating the data sets included looking at the change between conflictive and collaborative events over the timeframe researched. Line charts were used to understand the change between each event within a basin. This was helpful to understand the close relationship between groundwater (GW) and conjunctive water (CW) events as they usually followed a similar path. While this was helpful in sorting the changes within each category and differentiating between GW, surface water (SW), and CW, the data misrepresented perceived trends. There were situations where two events in the same category were separated by years or decades. The change in the conflict grading between each event caused a line to be drawn without any data to represent what happened between each point. This potentially misrepresented trends and required a new approach to the analysis.
The second approach to evaluating the data sets involved replacing the line graph with a standard scatter plot graph where the grouping of each category of events could be analyzed. While the line chart initially helped identify the three periods within the database, the scatterplot yielded an alternative perspective on trends and relationships between events. This became clear especially after an averaged trendline was added to better understand what was happening over time with the conflict level in each dataset. Below is a comparison of the line chart and the scatterplot data in each data set.
Snake River Basin (Table 11): In the SRB (SRP) some common trends appeared in both
graph types. SW is steady and less reactive to dynamics with stakeholders. This was
expected because GW users generally hold senior water rights and are less likely to be
impacted by water conflict on the SRP. The trends identified by the trendlines were
logical and seem to fit within the greater context of the research. It was expected
however, that trends would have a more positive gradient and be higher when they
44
were closest to 2019. This exposed the problem with a linear trendline, it was not
capturing the shifts within each period of the data.
Statewide Data (Table 12): In the Statewide dataset similar trends emerged as in the
SRB-SRP dataset. GW was however more reactive over time and GW events appeared
much later in the timeline when considered at the statewide level. In the third period of
the data, there is a precipitous drop in all categories of events. While I believe this is
because the IDWR and the courts became the primary conflict transformation
facilitators in this period, it is cause for concern when observing the trendlines on the
scatter plot chart. Looking at the long-term trends across the state all three categories
have a moderate level of conflict and unexpectedly, CW events seem to be getting more
conflictive over time.
Clearwater River Basin (Table 13): In the CRB the dataset revealed different conflict
and collaboration trends. As expected, the CRB was impacted by the SRBA much
differently that the SRB, primarily because of the isolation of the CRB and the relatively
low population that depends on the basin for their livelihood. The most surprising
finding in this dataset was the negative gradients of the GW and SW trendlines
contrasted against the positive gradient of CW trendline. Going back through these
data, this makes sense because of the general shortage of water experienced in the
second and third period of the database. This trend appears to be an accurate
representation of collaboration in the basin. The gradients of the trendlines
demonstrate what a trend might look like with limited datums are available to balance
the trend over time.
45
Table 11 Caparison of line chart and scatter plot graph with a linear trend line for SRB data 46
Table 12 Caparison of line chart and scatter plot graph with a linear trend line for Statewide data 47
Table 13 Caparison of line chart and scatter plot graph with a linear trend line for Clearwater River Basin data 48
The data analysis comparison was successful in demonstrating that there is a great deal of information to be pulled from each of the data sets and that changing how the data were viewed, yielded a more holistic approach to understanding trends in the data sets. The trendlines, however successful in identifying some surprising trends, might have misrepresented trends within each of the periods of the database and a more representative approach needed to be applied to understand the trends within each period.
Data Analysis
Adjusting the trendlines to use a moving average, set to average every two data points, proved successful in better representing trends through each period of the database. It confirmed that trends in the first period were relatively stable or in some cases as seen in Table 11 and 12, yielded slightly increased levels and frequency of conflict at the end of the period as stakeholders worked through change, related to new Federal environmental regulations. The second period of data were predicably erratic as stakeholders worked through the SRBA processes and droughts. In this period there was just about as much collaboration as there was conflict (Tables 11, 12, and 13) and the trendline would indicate that after this period, there was a shift which changed the conflict cycle across the state. In the third period a cycle of conflict appears to emerge where conflict gradually builds across the CW and GW categories and approximately every 5-10 years there is a period of increased conflictive and collaborative activity, followed by another cycle of limited events. Within this period one cycle of conflict appears to exist. If this cycle normalizes, it could indicate that the second cycle of conflict may culminate in the next five years. The data also suggests that there could be a moderate shift in this cycle. All datasets appear to present positive conflict grading trends in most categories over the last 5 years of datums. This is discussed later but could be a product of a more collaborative approach to water management and the greater use of water banks and markets, especially on the SRP.
49
The SW data are highly conflictive from 1950-2019 with almost all SW events being neutral or conflictive. Each dataset only has 1 collaborative SW event except for the SRB which has two. This is symptomatic of the nature of the prior appropriation water doctrine and the superior position of most
SW rights in Idaho. SW events are usually associated with SW users not receiving all the water within their water right, SW contamination from agricultural processes, or regulations related to SW. GW and
CW events generally follow the same trends as each other and react similar within each period of data.
There are more CW events on the collaborative end of the conflict scale than any of the other event types in the SRB and the Statewide datasets. This also makes sense as most GW rights are junior water rights in the state. Those users would have faced the possibility of significant curtailments since the
1980’s and would be forced to work collaboratively to find solutions with each other GW users and with superior SW users. They are generally more receptive to the collaborative process and adopt concepts like water banks and markets because they must look at all available options to sustain their water through the years. A closer look at the averaged trends in each dataset reveals clear and consistent trends which might help water managers and conflict transformation facilitators in Idaho.
Snake River Basin (Table 14): The SRB (SRP) dataset demonstrates general correlations
that are consistent throughout the data. GW and CW averaged trendline appear to
follow similar trends within 1-2 years of each other. It may be concluded that if it is
generally a conflictive or collaborative year for GW, it will also be for CW and vice versa.
CW generally matches GW trends but slightly more conflictive in the SRB dataset. It is
predicted that this slight difference is a result of senior SW rights being a part of the
evaluation of the CW event. As observed thus far, the SW events are generally more
conflictive but surprisingly after closer evaluation, the SW trend generally follows the
same trajectory as the GW and CW trends. This could indicate the nature of all water
within the SRP being interconnected. Additionally, SW data is not reported past 1999
50
and this also indicates that the people on the SRP may be taking a more conjunctive
approach to discussing and reporting water events. It would be interesting to
understand how this data would have been used if water managers had access to this
data in the early 1980’s. Would it have helped to better shape the SRBA and manage
the transition from a groupthink mentality of water management, to the new, more
collaborative, approach?
Statewide Data (Table 15): The Statewide dataset also demonstrates trends that are
relatively consistent throughout the data. The GW and CW also appear to be linked at
the statewide level; however, there are some significant differences from observations
in the SRB. GW trends generally lead CW trends by 1-3 years, but CW trends tend to be
more collaborative than GW trends. This is opposite of the SRB and the prediction on
the change was that junior GW users are working through conflicts and developing
collaborative solutions which then are used in CW events once the proof of concept is
developed. This prediction was tested by sorting through these changes in the research
database, but the narrative of these events was not generally connected and did not
support this predication. If additional sources were used, this predication might bear
true as something appears to be causing unrelated statewide events to trend similarly
across GW and CW events. As in the SRB, SW has a less reactive, but similar general
trend as GW and CW. SW does, however, break this trend at the end of the data’s
second period. For about the last 20 years of data it appears that SW trends oppose GW
and CW trends which would be more representative of the traditional view of western
water’s zero-sum paradigm. It is also worth noting the precipitous drop in reported GW
and SW Statewide data over the last 15 years. This is most likely a product of policy
makers and water managers beginning to discuss water more conjunctively.
51
Clearwater River Basin (Table 16): The CRB dataset reinforces observations made with
the SRB dataset. The correlation in the data is harder to discern because there is less
data, but the trends do generally follow the same observations made in the SRB.
52
Table 14 SRB data with moving average trendline.
53
Table 15 Statewide data with moving average trendline.
54
Table 16 CRB data with moving average trendline.
55
Trying to tie all these data together into universal observations was difficult. The primary difficulty is the lack of direct connection between events. While there did exists some data points which were directly connected over time, some for multiple decades, this was a small amount of the datums. During the research and analysis, great care had to be taken to not forget this. Trends certainly exist within the datasets but not because there was always a progression of multiple events causally related in a specific series. The trends exist despite direct connection with multiple events within a given series. This indicates that there is much more to this data that is not completely understood because there is not enough data to fill in the missing gaps. Additional data from additional sources would better complete this database and would likely confirm these trends and build a better understanding of cause and connection between events within each dataset.
Conflict and Collaboration Comparison by Month
As the research database was being built it was surprising to find the range of months included within the data. It was expected that conflict would exist mostly within the irrigation season and that collaboration would exist mostly outside of the irrigation season because irrigators would have more time to engage in the collaborative process. The database indicates this prediction was inaccurate. All data were sorted by month to understand the most conflictive and most collaborative months (Table
17). To better understand the context of the data, annual events were considered which might factor correlate with these data. These events were considered.
January-March: (average) Idaho legislative session (https://legislature.idaho.gov/)
April: Income Taxes Due
April-October: Normal Irrigation Season for most irrigation districts
56
If these major events are assumed to impact water conflict in Idaho, the most conflictive months are likely at the end of the annual legislative session, and in the middle of the irrigation season. Conversely, the most collaborative months appear to be from the end of the irrigation season to the end of the year.
Although this might be intuitive to water managers and mediators, it is helpful to understand the historic precedence of which months will likely yield the best results for a desired outcome within a given conflictive event.
Table 17 Cumulative Conflictive and Collaborative data by month
Future Conflict Projections and Solutions
What is causing Idaho to continue with the same approach, almost 30 years after identifying that the SRP is over-appropriated? Five years after fending off another legal curtailment with an agreed self-curtailment, the SRP is essentially over-appropriated by 240,000-600,000 AF (IDWR 2019). Can
Idaho eliminate at least 240,000 AF of water rights from the ledger to relieve most of the pressure on the ESPA and the water conflict on the SRP? Can they conversely find enough efficiency to gain back up to 600,000 AF of water? Groupthink can be described as a way of thinking when people are deeply involved in a cohesive group, and when the members who are striving for unanimity, override their
57 motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action (Rose 2011). While hopefully alternative courses of action are being discussed between stakeholders on the SRP, there does not appear to be anything published by the IDWR which would indicate the state is looking at alternative solutions to create a more resilient and sustainable water model for the SRP. While there are a whole host of implications for continuing the same approach to water conflict on the SRP.
Unaccounted Water Use
While domestic wells extract relatively insignificant amounts of groundwater, in contrast to the total scale of water extraction on the SRP, they could be a significant impact at the margins. All the current IDWR plans and actions for the SRP which were reviewed for this project, are designed to eliminate the 600,000 AF deficit that existed in 2009. None of the IDWR’s reports seem to adjust their numbers based off the dynamic situation on the ground today. While there is a moratorium on all new water rights within the Snake River Basin, there is not a moratorium on non-regulated wells, often called the silent revolution in world of water conflict (Jarvis 2014). Non-regulated wells are domestic wells and under Idaho state law a domestic well can be used for:
42-111. DOMESTIC [WELL] PURPOSES DEFINED. (1) For purposes of sections 42-221, 42-227, 42- 230, 42-235, 42-237a, 42-242, 42-243 and 42-1401A, Idaho Code, the phrase "domestic purposes" or "domestic uses" means: (a) The use of water for homes, organization camps, public campgrounds, livestock and for any other purpose in connection therewith, including irrigation of up to one-half (1/2) acre of land, if the total use is not in excess of thirteen thousand (13,000) gallons per day, or (b) Any other uses, if the total use does not exceed a diversion rate of four one-hundredths (0.04) cubic feet per second and a diversion volume of twenty-five hundred (2,500) gallons per day.
58
The ESPA is a sole source aquifer where 200,000 people on the plain rely on the aquifer to pump groundwater as the only source of drinking water (IDEQ). The ESPA is one of the largest and most productive aquifer in the United States (IDEQ) (EPA).
Figure 9 EPA geographical representation of sole source aquifers in the United States
IDWR has historically had conflict with these domestic wells on the SRP and one event in the research database from 1999 outlined how Idaho water managers were notifying the public that they may be violating the law if they are using water from their domestic well to water over .5 acres of land. The fiscal year 2020-2023 Idaho Department of Water Resources Strategic Plan states “Groundwater supplies across Idaho have been declining. In some areas, these declines have resulted in reduced water supplies that cannot sustain all surface and groundwater uses.” The report does not mention any type of action to understand the impact of population growth and domestic wells. Idaho built 15,591 houses between 2018 and 2019, resulting in 2.1 percent growth (Kathryn Tacke 2020). While all of those houses are not in rural areas with their own domestic well, current housing trends during the 2020
Pandemic indicate that many are leaving cities for more rural living (Tate 2020). Does Idaho have a plan for potentially tens of thousands of new domestic wells on the SRP over the next 10-20 years? While
59 this is also beyond the scope of this project, it would provide additional perspective to conduct an analysis and projection of non-regulated groundwater wells on the SRP, compared with 2009 when
IWDR made their initial plan to see if the numbers are keeping pace with reality. While the numbers for domestic wells may be insignificant, they may play a critical role when they start to dry out and become new conflictive events for water managers.
Idaho’s Changing Economy
While the future of Idaho’s economy could fill volumes of research on its own, it is briefly touched upon here. There is a significant shift taking place in Idaho’s economy which should prompt policy makers and water managers to take a deeper look at the potential of water conflicts as larger
Idaho Economic Comparison $20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
GDP IN MILLIONS GDPMILLIONS IN $5,000.00
$0.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Construction Manufacturing and information Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing Professional and business services Government and government enterprises
Table 18 Idaho Economic Comparison looking at GDP across sectors of Idaho's economy which could impact agricultural use of water. Source of data: https://apps.bea.gov/ portions of the economy are driven by manufacturing and how that might come into conflict with current water use prioritization. From 2014 to 2017 agricultural GDP was in a steady decline while manufacturing was substantially increasing. Was this downturn the start of a larger trend or was this an
60 anomaly? Idaho is one of the top 5 states that produce milk. 2019 marks the largest decline in almost two decades in a steady decline (Nepveux 2020) One of the largest impacts to agriculture in Idaho is a general shortage of labor according to Idaho’s 2019 Economic Forecast Report (Idaho's Division of
Finacial Management 2019). In 2020 Idaho was the largest growing state in the United States, growing at 2.09% (Luck 2020). Boise State University recently released the results of their Idaho Public Policy
Survey and found that the average age of arrivals to Idaho are between 35 and 39, and about 46% of those who have moved to the state have a bachelor’s degree (Luck 2020). Jobs are moving away from traditional Idaho agriculture jobs, into expanding sectors like medical, science, personal services, and real estate (Study.com 2020). As an example, Boise Idaho’s Micron Technologies is leading the world on the cutting edge of new solid state computer memory technology and manufacturing (Micron
Technologies 2020). Also, Chobani Yogurt has built one of the world’s largest yogurt production plants in Twin Falls which is a key employer in the community but uses approximately 700,000 gallons of water per day for production ((KTVB) 2014).
In 2015, Idaho was the second largest user of groundwater for agriculture, behind only
California (Murray 2018). Agriculture employs about 5% of employed Idahoans but utilizes about 86% of all water put to beneficial use in the state (Murray 2018). Although currently other industries use but a fraction of the remaining water, they employ a vast majority of workers, who contribute much more to
Idaho’s economy. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2018 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and hunting accounted for $3.13B, or about 12% of Idaho’s total GDP. Additional research conducting a cost-benefit analysis of sustaining the level of agriculture on the SRP would prove valuable to Idaho.
How much does water conflict cost the SRP in comparison to how much they make within Idaho’s economy. When you add up all the federal and state subsidies does it make sense compared to the amount of people that those subsidies support? As the economy continues to shift, does Idaho have a plan to accommodate a future economy which may not have as many equities in agriculture on the SRP?
61
Climate Change and Ecological Conflicts
Discussing water conflict within the SRB and not at least mentioning ecological considerations would be irresponsible. The local ecosystem in the SRB is like all other ecosystems, it requires inputs and organisms which interact and perform functions which maintain the system’s equilibrium (Perry,
Oren and Hart 2008). When the system is imbalanced it will potentially limit overall productivity and ultimately impact all organisms within it, including humans (Peñuelas, et al. 2011). Humans have massively altered the ecosystem on the SRP. A few of the major changes include building dams on the rivers, channeling rivers, and streams, diverting rivers into canal systems, and tilling the desert into farmland. Even with so much human change, the ecosystem still continually seeks an equilibrium. An indication of an imbalance in the system is first brought up in 1988 when the Fish and Wildlife Service considered curtailing irrigation water rights to protect the Snake River Physa Snail. The strong negative reaction to the concerns for the snail might have been a form of information avoidance, as it pertains to groupthink, where potentially negative data is avoided to reinforce the group’s objectives (Bènabou
2013).
The SRB has largely avoided many other water conflicts from protected species because the infrastructure (dams and canals) mostly being built before the Endangered Species Act. The Hells
Canyon Dam complex was built by Idaho Power in the 1960’s and prevents fish passage. When the dams were being relicensed in 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service did not require Idaho Power to add fish ladders denying the ecosystem a natural input (Miller 2006). The decision was made to instead use the money for the ladder, to clean up pollution above the dams and reinforcing an imbalance within the system which historically (before the 1960’s) did have anadromous fish runs up into the Payette, Boise, and Owyhee Rivers. While the Snake River Physa Snail was the only species which were significantly represented in the research database on the SRP, it is commonly known that the Snake River annually manifests another imbalance in the system with annual algae blooms
62 throughout the SRP. “Algae outbreaks occur when conditions in a waterbody – such as temperature and/or high levels of phosphorus or nitrates – promote the uncontrolled growth of algae.” (Ki 2019) The algae consume much of the oxygen in the water and can negatively impact aquatic organisms which balance other aspects of the ecosystem. There are examples throughout the database where Idaho agriculture has impacted other water users because of agriculture runoff polluting waterways. These are serious impacts to the ecosystem’s health and will eventually impact all organisms on the SRP.
Figure 10 Algae Bloom on the Snake River, photo courtesy of the Idaho Conservation League 2019
Our climate in Idaho is connected to the global ecosystem and it plays important roles in the local ecosystem’s hydraulic inputs (especially with volume and timing), as well as exposure to temperatures and winds which might impact things like wild-land fires, water quality, or when the spring runoff occurs. Besides population growth, this will likely be one of the biggest impacts to water conflict in Idaho in the future (Kliskey, et al. 2019). IDWR’s website does not present any future courses of action based on the impacts of climate change. In 2006, the Western Governors Association created the
63 report: Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future, which is on the IDWR website. Despite publishing the robust report on their website, outlining many important planning factors for the future, like climate change, the Fiscal Year 2020-2023 Idaho Department of Water Resources Strategic Plan does not contain one reference to climate change. While the IDWR might not be openly engaging this type of topic, Idaho’s industry and academic community is. In 2017 the University of Idaho hosted over 500 people at their Economic Assessment on Climate Change in Idaho forum. The meeting was for industry and people with an interest, to come together and discuss how Idaho’s economy can be resilient in the face of climate change. No mention in the information about the meeting referenced the IDWR participating. Lastly, although they are not well represented in the research database as they are a more recent stakeholder who is more nuanced with their communications, there are a significant amount of conservation and environmental groups in Idaho that are very engaged with the Snake River now. These groups have strong values about their views on the highest and best use of water throughout Idaho and they are generally mobilizing support online through social media. This will be a significant force for Idaho water users and managers to collaborate with or litigate against into the future.
64
Current Shortfall and Existing Solutions
In 2009 IDWR determined that across the SRP water rights, there was an approximate 600,000
AF deficit (Patton 2011). In the third period of these data, Idaho appears to aggressively approach water in a conjunctive manner as described previously. One sustainable solution to this type of shortage is storing or banking water in the ESPA in a process called Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR). (Margat and
Gun 2013) MAR occurs when an entity deliberately takes actions to put water back into an
Figure 11 Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Diagram. Diagram courtesy of the Kern Water Bank Authority.
underground aquifer for some benefit, usually storage for later use (Maven 2013). While one event in the research database indicated that MAR was recommended at the state level as a preventative measure as early as 1969, no significant action was taken to implement and encourage its use until the
1990’s. In 2009 the IDWR stated that it would cost $600M over 30 years to eliminate the 600,000 AF deficit (Patton, Eastern Snake River Plain Managed Aquifer Recharge Program 2011). In the first phase
(10 years) IDWR’s goal was to achieve their portion of the annual water budget adjustment of 200,000-
300,000AF through Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR). In 2019, the IDWR released a progress report
65 where they said they had spent $54M and had adjusted the water budget by over 550,000 AF (IDWR
2019).
IDWR’s actual average aquifer recharge from 2009-2019 was about 154,000 AF annually (IDWR
2019). When IDWR stretched the timeline out over almost 20 years, since they had started aquifer recharge projects in the 1990’s, they achieved a better average of just over their 200,000 AF goal. These numbers are under particularly good precipitation conditions with little drought during this period. The rest of the approximately 550,000 AF adjustment came from groundwater curtailments and a bit of creative accounting. Almost half of the adjustment was made in the form of agreements between surface water users and groundwater users, where groundwater users agreed to self-curtail their use of about 250,000 AF so that no single user would face total curtailment (IDWR 2017). There is also a unique play on numbers with what the IDWR calls “soft conversions” where groundwater users pumped on average about 87,000 AF of groundwater into surface water systems. While these soft conversions may help meet certain agreements between both groups, the aquifer was still depleted, and depletion gets the state farther from the brokered objectives of the 2005 SWC water call agreement to stabilize the aquifer. Additionally, if the state continues to fund the project at its current rate, which IDWR states is unlikely, they will have only spent about $162M or under a third of the projected cost over 30 years
(IDWR 2019). Some taxpayers are not happy with their tax dollars getting used to subsidize managed aquifer recharge and think that the water users should bear that cost (Marvel 2016).
A successful tool that has helped avert conflict more recently is the IDWR’s Water Bank which is run by the Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB). The Water Bank allows users who are not using all their water right to rent or lease to other users for short term use. Idaho’s first water rental took place in the
1930’s but the Idaho Water Bank was not formalized until 1976 (IDWR). It has taken a much more prominent position as an important tool to facilitate junior water rights who would otherwise be shorted in the last 10-15 years (Kliskey, et al. 2019).
66
Table 19 Total IWRB Water Leases and Rentals from 2010-2018. Chart Courtesy of the IWRB via (Ebeling, et al. 2019)
As demonstrated in table 19 as the 2005 SWA water call conflict was culminating in 2014 & 2015, water leases and rentals peaked to help distribute water resources to the best and highest use as determined by the economy and market. This has culminated in 2019 when the IWRB leased 612,641 AF of water
(IWRB 2019). While this tool has played a critical role in suspending more intense conflict on the SRP and across the state, Idaho can find more efficiencies and conflict resolution through alternative means of water transactions.
Some researchers believe that Idaho can be used as the blueprint for water market transactions in other states and around the world (Ebeling, et al. 2019). In addition to Idaho’s Water Bank, water transaction efficiencies can be realized through water markets which might be more responsive to water users and their needs. Incentivized Managed Aquifer Recharge (IMAR) is a concept being developed and implemented on the ESPA by the Recharge Development Corporation. IMAR is based on the same principles which are generally used for leasing shares of water in a surface water reservoir. A water user purchases an aquifer recharge unit from a management firm, like an irrigation district, which gives them ownership of a volume of space in the aquifer. An extensive system of sensors measures recharge, outflow, and extraction, almost in real time, which allows the management company to convey how much water each user has in their bank and how much can be extracted, sold, shared etc. (Tuthill Jr. and
Carlson 2018). This option is the most representative of a market system where resources are intuitively
67 moved, sold, or shared to the most beneficial use and when the bank account is empty the water is not withdrawn. This has the potential to change the nature of water conflict on the SRP and gives all users a seat at the table for determining resource allocation. It also frees the IDWR from managing so much of the conflict. It would enable the IDWR to refocus their efforts on ensuring accurate accountability of all water rights In Idaho and shift their focus to a more strategic view of water resources into the future.
CONCLUSION
Hypothesis Test
1. The database will show us what drives conflict and collaboration in groundwater and surface
water. Idaho as a western state should follow a similar progression with water conflict and
collaboration, the history of these events should demonstrate similar experiences when
compared with other similar research.
Idaho has taken its own, unique, journey with water conflict and collaboration. Idaho’s journey was shaped largely by a very myopic view of water use on the SRP. This homogenous view of the best use for water, and the isolation of the SRP prevented water use challenges until much later than other similar basins in the region. The exceptionally productive characteristics of the ESPA artificially supported an explosion of groundwater development from 1950-1980. While not all shared in the same groupthink mentality, the mentality prevailed, and a serious look at conjunctive management and assessing the overall water capacity on the SRP did not happen until it was too late and the plain was over appropriated. The resulting SRBA caused significant conflict and resolution throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. Water users who were once in it together under the previous groupthink mentality, now began to see each other as competitors and the current conflict cycle began to emerge around the year
68
2000. The current cycle, which is more like other basins reviewed for this work, consists of a standard cycle of conflict over policy or water quantity which culminates in a conflictive group of actions usually between stakeholders. For the first iteration of this cycle, the IDWR stepped in to broker an agreement, collaborative measures were taken, and the cycle started again. While not enough data or time exists to confirm the cycle length, it appears that this may exist on a 5-10 year cycle.
One thing has not changed in 70 years. In all but the most extreme instances, the single highest and best use of water on the SRP has been agriculture. This confirms that Idaho’s experience (at least within the SRP) is dissimilar to at least Oregon’s relationship with water use and conflict, in the KRB and the DRB. My research was largely based on comparing my data with Kristel Fesler’s and the two sets of data are very opposite. Fesler found that water managers in Oregon must contend with a host of water uses and priorities, while in Idaho on the SRB, water managers are almost exclusively working water quantity or priority conflicts.
2. Social, political, economic, ecological, and legal factors should predict conflict and resolution.
This is confirmed by comparing changes in the data with known events in Idaho’s chronological record.
In the 1970’s, new environmental laws correlate with events in the database becoming more conflictive.
As Idaho worked its way through the SRBA, the frequency and severity of the events increased. It appeared from the database trends that Idaho was struggling through a systematic change to their accepted norm. Since about 2000, the SRP has experienced predictable conflict and collaboration after events like water calls from senior water rights. Within a reasonable level of predictability water users and water managers actions, in conjunction with system inputs, should yield a reasonably accurate projection of water conflict into the near future. Not enough data has been used in IDWR’s projections to account for climate changes or value changes which could upset the status quo in the future.
69
3. The data should prove that water conflict should grow over time and upon reaching a threshold,
resolutions will be found through collaborative actions and the conflict will de-escalate.
This was confirmed as annotated in response to the first hypothesis.
4. Social and economic relationship with groundwater and surface water in Idaho has a predictable
cycle of conflict over time and space.
While this was expected to be an easy answer that was not the case. The database indicates that there are three distinct periods within these data, each with their own unique characteristics. Additionally, it was observed that each category (GW, SW, CW) has its own set of correlations by dataset (basin). If evaluating each period, cycles can be established. If considering the entire database timeline, cycles are less predictable. The data did clearly demonstrate the following, SW events are generally less reactive and follow a moderate level of conflict over time. GW and CW events are generally reactive to each other and SW events and follow a more collaborative (less conflictive) trend. Specific conflict cycles, as outlined in the first hypothesis response were not observed until the third data period and not enough time has elapsed to model this cycle and the relationship of each category over these cycles.
5. Changing global trends will change existing relationship dynamics in the future.
o Environmental awareness
o Economic changes
o Climate change
70
Time limitations with this project did not allow for a complete analysis of this hypothesis. Also, Idaho’s focus on water being used first, and almost exclusively, for agriculture, does not create a great breadth of opportunity or research on this subject. This is an emerging field of research that Idaho should strongly embrace and support to develop more balanced and resilience plans. It was however observed that there is a relatively young but strong movement toward environmental awareness. Websites and social media accounts for the following groups are some of the groups viewed for this project:
- Snake River Water Keeper
- Upper Snake River Tribes Foundation
- The Nature Conservancy in Idaho
- Idaho Conservation League
- Idaho Environmental Forum
- Idaho Climate Summit
- Idaho Rivers United
- Trout Headwaters Inc
Idaho’s demographics and economy are changing, especially on the SRP in southern Idaho. While it was not clear from the data reviewed what that would possibly mean for water conflict, the lack of acknowledging this in IDWR’s plans and reports indicate that this could be a future source of water conflict. Not only might this be a future source of conflict, but it could be a relatively new source of conflict as Idaho has not significantly worked through water use conflict in its history on the SRP.
Scenario Based Considerations
As the research concluded the data left a foreboding sense that Idaho is missing something in their calculations for a more resilient SRP which can sustain social and economic growth in the face of an
71 unknown future. These concerns are built into two worst-case scenarios which might help outline the cost of failing to build more resilient on the SRP.
One scenario starts with a massive external event like a pandemic, extended drought, or military actions that culminate in a massive economic recession which all but chokes off farmers and ranchers income on the SRP. Government bailouts are not enough to pay all the bills and some face defaulting on their loans. Senior groundwater users get to a point where they feel they must break up the coalition to be able to get their full water rights to support their business/livelihood. There is strength in solidarity, but once the first user leaves, the coalition is weakened. There will immediately be others who question why they would stay. If enough of these senior groundwater users refuse to carry the burden for the groundwater group, the system could topple and the SRP’s water system could grind to a halt with litigation. While this scenario is void of human dynamics, the IDWR, the Idaho State legislature, and other externalities like emerging water markets, the main components of risk are presented for consideration.
Another scenario could result from an overconfidence from ignoring or not understanding climate change considerations, the impacts of non-regulated wells, population growth, and economic changes in Idaho. Overly optimistic numbers on state sponsored plans potentially provide a false sense optimism that self-curtailing GW now will pay off in the long run when the state’s MAR plan gets the SRP back to a 2009 level for the aquifer. IDWR’s actual recharge is not as much as promised, while climate change has altered the precipitation cycle and the SRP is just not receiving the same level of input at the same time to help the hydraulic cycle support the ESPA. This is exacerbated by non-regulated wells which are being drilled all over the plain for the population boom from out of state transplants bringing capital for new technologies and manufacturing businesses throughout the SRP. The Water Bank and other water markets work to keep some of the water moving for enough users to keep the faith. At the
20 year anniversary, the IDWR releases a new report in 2029 that states they overestimated what they
72 could accomplish with MAR and they cannot explain, but they estimate, the silent revolution of non- regulated wells to support an additional 200,000 people are drawing so much water that the MAR is barely keeping up with the current use. The conflict that has been simmering for almost 40 years at this point, erupts as trust from junior water users has been broken and a whole group of stakeholders becomes disenfranchised turning into conflict across the SRP.
The two scenarios above are extreme but realistic. These types of scenarios are not commonly discussed in the literature on the SRP water conflict. All stakeholders universally understand that SRP is over appropriated, but Idaho has chosen to either avoid direct conflict or to allow water users to figure it out with only limited governmental support. This creates a constant fear of uncertainty and the possibility of curtailment if IDWR got the numbers wrong or if the complicated equation changes faster than the group can adapt to. This fear of getting the equation wrong seems like a legitimate fear when
IDWR is generating strategic plans that do not describe the impacts of considerations like climate change, population growth, and economic shifts (IDWR 2020). While Idaho appears to have success with its Water Bank and water rights transfers for the SRP, they are failing to address the main problem that will never go away, we cannot meet the water rights now, of a SRP which is still growing and changing. Who is challenging the norms and perspectives to ensure that Idaho is developing the solutions which best sustain the SRP? If Idaho gets the equation wrong, how much more does it cost to manage the conflict that has erupted onto the surface and is wreaking havoc on Idaho’s economy in 10-
20-30 years as opposed to paying for that solution now?
Proposed Solutions
Water conflict solutions which are sustainable are built upon collaboration, consensus, and trust. This solution is a concept that was developed while this project was built. Before starting a conflict resolution process, it would be valuable to use any existing, effective solution, to its maximum
73 benefit to have immediate impacts on conflict across the SRP. In this case, expanding IMAR and other dynamic water market options across the SRP would be an initial step which should be considered as the starting point for a conflict resolution process.
To begin any conflict resolution process, you must start with a clear understanding of the history of the conflict. This requires a considerable amount of time to learn the context of the conflict. In the case of Idaho’s SRP, hard questions must be asked. Questions like:
- Who are the winners and losers in the current system?
- Are all users and water uses represented in the current system?
- Who stands to win more or lose more if the system changes?
- Despite the plain being over-appropriated, do people think the current processes are
working?
- Would stakeholder’s values currently facilitate a collaborative process leading to
changes in the status quo?
- What is the potential for that process to yield something more sustainable than what
exists now?
- Does the IDWR, or any entity who facilitates this process, have the capacity and
resources to facilitate this process?
If these answers support a more inclusive and reciprocal approach to managing water conflict on the
SRP, we can move forward with a potential solution.
Normally there would be a relatively simple, but dynamic, approach to the rest of the process which would take place over months and years. After building the stakeholder group, the team would work on building trust and relationships (one of the most important aspects of conflict resolution). After the team has had a chance to coalesce, they would need to determine ground rules, their mission & objectives, and timelines. The important piece of the collaborative process is to develop a common
74 perspective and definitions of the problem. The facilitator of the process would develop an understanding of the team and determine the best tools to keep the team talking through the collaborative process to consensus. Another complex connection exists when considering conveying the group’s consensus to policy makers and shepherding the consensus through the policy process to be standardized and implemented as law. The process can become more elaborate as the consensus moves past policy when stakeholders move past legal obligations to stewardship on behalf of enriching the aquatic ecosystem to benefit all organisms which depend on it. There is a lot left out the middle in this definition, which is the actual conflictive process and getting to a point where stakeholders acknowledge and then understand the values which drive positions counter to their own. The hard work is for the facilitator to keep the group focused on the issues (positions), and not the values or the person who is presenting them.
While this generalization of a conflict resolution process has been successfully repeated many times by the author, it does not accurately represent the scale required to build a sustainable solution to the state of Idaho’s water problems. This problem set would require a scaled approach driven by each water district within the state so that all water users and water uses would have a voice in the future of
Idaho’s water. Once the process was established and repeatable, the process could be expanded to eventually hold an annual water meeting where each district would present the issues they are working through and the recommendations they propose to the state. The purpose here is to size the groups at an appropriate scale so that relationships are maintained, and the collaborative process is cultivated. If the system yields success and there was a sustained participation, I would then advocate for IDWR to build a website where some of the collaborative processes and inputs could be standardized and potentially opened up for public comments and process could be maintained centrally. This would allow the State to develop a more dynamic assessment of water conflict risk while enhancing the collaborative
75 processes and objectives across each water district. This would help drive policy and best allocate resources to the highest risk water districts.
Final Observations:
The SRP has a unique set of geologic, political, and social characteristics which has allowed it to develop a-typically compared to other similar river basins in the PNW. As the SRP was developed, most stakeholders had a singular outlook on ensuring the Snake River was put to the maximum beneficial use by irrigating the fertile desert soil. Unlike some other river basins, water users, water engineers, taxpayers, Native American tribes, social groups, politicians, and federal agencies seemed to have maintained the same opinion about the highest and best use of the Snake River. After Idaho Power, aided by Governor Jordan, repelled the Federal Government’s attempt to steal the Snake River with the
Hells Canyon High Dam, the community felt empowered. After the Teton Dam failure and the application of huge amounts of federal emergency dollars, the communities on the SRP felt resilient enough to handle anything that the river basin could throw at them. Repeatedly through the Swan Falls
Agreement, the SRBA, and the associated conflict centered around the over-appropriation of water rights on the SRP, IDWR has repeatedly presented a similar course of action based on engineering solutions and self-curtailing of junior groundwater users, as the best course of action for an over- appropriated SRP.
Even though the State of Idaho was responsible for allowing the over-appropriation of water on the SRP, they are not taking direct, corrective actions to address the root-cause of the conflict. They are instead putting the conflict on the shoulders of the junior water users. While the temporarily solution of spreading the burden out amongst the junior groundwater users seems to make sense when attempting to avoid total curtailment, it is simply a shell game passing the shortfall around and creates more conflict over time. Idaho’s does not have an assured plan to eventually make the self-curtailed water
76 rights whole again. If the IDWR is unable to recharge the ESPA as advertised, or if senior groundwater users get tired of carrying an unnecessary burden of self-curtailment, the plan may begin to unravel.
Idaho taxpayers are not universally onboard with subsiding MAR. Some think that if businesses and industries are making significant income, maybe the business should invest that money back into the infrastructure and the programs required to sustain it.
The social, economic, climate, and political landscape seem to be changing in Idaho. A recent and significant dip in the Agricultural GDP, contrasted against a strong growth in manufacturing and construction may indicate that things are changing for Idaho’s population and economy. The Dairy industry, which makes up a substantial portion of the agriculture-based economy in Idaho, is struggling and the country is just not consuming as much dairy as it once did. When large manufacturers want to come into Idaho and take advantage of the arid climate and skilled workforce to build manufacturing plants as Micron Technology has in Boise or Chobani has in Twin Falls, how will the state react to these new significant job and tax revenue creators? Is Idaho thinking about building enough resiliency into their water plan to protect future growth and prevent significant new conflict on the plain.
At face value, the numbers that the IDWR are using to demonstrate they are on track to meet their ESPA MAR milestones, do not seem to add up, even under ideal precipitation conditions. They are not meeting their funding objectives and their desire to use a longer time horizon for their recharge performance data indicates they are not meeting recharge rates for the 2015 SWC-IGWA agreement.
Additionally, they seem to be trying to solve the 2009 problem, by 2039. It is not clear that the IDWR strategic plan is flexible enough to account for dynamic, new problems that could undermine the legitimacy, or at least the priority, of the 2009 problem.
The uniqueness of the SRP experience seems to have led to a homogeneous, focused, set of goals and objectives for SRP water stakeholders. It may have created a group-think mentality where everyone is focused on how to we can extract beneficial use out of every last AF of water but there is no
77 indication that all users are equally represented in the prioritization of that beneficial use. This over appropriation is impacting the social and economic resiliency on the SRP. The cost of physical corrective actions and engineering increases with each year. Idaho should be aggressively embracing water market options for dynamic solutions that will have immediate effects on conflict and resiliency on the SRP.
Long-term solutions should be considered where all water users and water uses have a voice when developing a future plan for water. Other basins who considered the best and highest use of water with multiple competing uses like in the Klamath and the Deschutes went through this transition decades ago and are far more advanced in their collaborative management models and processes.
Despite the level of conflict, we still do not have a full appreciation for the true cost of water on the SRP.
Idaho should reflect on Mr. Franklin’s observations and take the opportunity to develop an equitable plan where priorities are matched with the true value of water on the SRP.
78
Works Cited (KTVB), Associated Press. 2014. Chobani plant to reduce water use after complaints. December 18. Accessed November 11, 2020. https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/chobani-plant-to- reduce-water-use-after-complaints/277-273483654. agclassroom.org. 2013. A Look at Idaho Agriculture. July. Accessed May 14, 2020. https://www.agclassroom.org/kids/stats/idaho.pdf.
Alliance for Water Stewardship. 2019. INTERNATIONAL WATER STEWARDSHIP STANDARD. International Standard, North Berwick: Alliance for Water Stewardship.
Aylward, Bruce, and David Newton. 2006. Long-Range Water Resources Management in Central Oregon: Balancing Supply and Demand in the Deschutes Basin . Technical, Bend: Bureau of Reclamation.
BEA. 2020. Regional Data: GDP and Personal Income . Apr 7. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1#reqid=70&step=1& isuri=1&acrdn=1.
Bènabou, Roland. 2013. "Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets." The Review of Economic Studies 429-462.
BLM. 2020. "Southwest Idaho Geology." Bureau of LAnd Management Media Center. Accessed August 28, 2020. https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/19668#:~:text=The%20filling%20of%20the%20western ,beginning%20of%20Pleistocene%20Ice%20Age.
Bonnichsen, Bill. 2016. Secrets of the Snake River Plain Revealed. Accessed May 7, 2020. https://www.idahoptv.org/shows/outdooridaho/episodes/idahogeology/.
Brooks, Karl Boyd. 2006. Public Power, Private Dams: The Hells Canyon High Dam Controversy. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Bryan, Michelle. 2015. "At the End of the Da t the End of the Day: Are the the West's General Steam Adjudications Rele Adjudications Relevant to Modern W o Modern Water Rights Administr ater Rights Administration ." Wyoming Law Review 461-516.
Budge, Randy Budge' T.J. 2016. Summary of ESPA Settlement Agreement. Law Overview, Boise: Racine Olson.
Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Brief History of the Bureau of Reclamation. Accessed May 12, 2020. https://www.usbr.gov/history/borhist.html.
—. 2015. Minidoka Dam. Accessed April 29, 2020. http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Minidoka+Dam.
Concerned Citizens of Western Montana. 2020. "Is Montana Hopelessly Compromised?" Western Montana Water Rights , March: https://westernmtwaterrights.wordpress.com/2020/03/29/is- montana-hopelessly-compromised/.
79
Crawford, Brian A., Rachel Katz, and S. Kyle McKay. 2017. Engaging Stakeholders in Natural Resource Decision-Making. Technical Report, Athens: University of Georgia.
Darlington, E. B. 1920. "The Romance of a River: A Past, A Present and Future Survey of Irrigation in Southern Idaho." Reclamation Record, March: 122-123.
DeGrey, Laura, Myles Miller, and Paul K. Link. 2010. Digital Geology of Idaho. Accessed May 10, 2020. http://geology.isu.edu/Digital_Geology_Idaho/Module6/mod6.htm.
Deschutes River Conservancy . 2006. "Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program ." Deschutes River Conservancy . Accessed May 30, 2020. https://www.deschutesriver.org/Deschutes- Groundwater-Mitigation-Program.pdf.
Deseret News. 1992. "MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT SENDS IDAHO'S WATER WAR FLOWING IN NEW DIRECTION." Deseret News, May 24: Online.
Dumas, Carol Ryan. 2017. "Water managers lay out Idaho’s water issues." Capital Press, Dec 18: Online.
Ebeling, Elan, Zach Kearl, Emma Weaver, and Noah Wentzel. 2019. Water Banking and Water Marketing in Select Western States: Case Study Review: Colorado, Idaho, & Nebraska. Information Report, Washington State Department of Ecology.
Eborn, Ben, and Garth Taylor. 2016. The Financial Condition of Idaho Agriculture. Information, Moscow: University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics.
EPA. n.d. Sole Source Aquifer Map. Accessed November 18, 2020. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155f e31356b.
Farmland Information Center. 2012. Idaho Data and Statistics. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://farmlandinfo.org/statistics/idaho-statistics/.
Fesler, Kristel J. 2007. An Analysis of Water Resource Conflict and Cooperation in Oregon. Mater's Thesis, Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Franklin, Benjamin. 1746. Poor Richard, 1746. An Almanack For the Year of Christ 1746. Philadelphia: B. Franklin. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-03-02-0025.
Gladwell, Malcom. 2013. David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants. New York : Little Brown and Company.
Harrington, Paul R. 2012. "The Establishment of Prior Appropriation ." Idaho Law Review 22-38.
Idaho Conservation League. 2019. Declining Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer: Causes, Trends and Public Health Effects. Information, Boise : Idaho Conservation League.
Idaho Department of Water Resources . 1992. Snake River Basin Upstream From Weiser. Boise: IDWR.
Idaho DEQ. 2004. Snake River - Hells Canyon Subbasins - Subbasin Characteristics. Accessed july 15, 2020. https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas- tmdls/snake-river-hells-canyon-subbasin/.
80
Idaho Power. n.d. Hydroelectric Plants. Accessed November 20, 2020. https://www.idahopower.com/energy-environment/energy/energy- sources/hydroelectric/hydroelectric-plants/.
Idaho Public Television. 2010. About Idaho: History. Accessed May 11, 2020. http://idahoptv.org/productions/idahoportrait/about/history.html.
Idaho State Bar Water Law Section and Randy Stapilus. 2014. Through the Waters: An oral history of the Snake River Basin Adjudication. Carlton: Ridenbaugh Press.
Idaho State Legislature. 2020. Scott Bedke Biography. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://legislature.idaho.gov/house/membership/.
Idaho's Division of Finacial Management. 2019. Idaho Economic Forcast: 2018-2022. Financial, Boise: Executive Office of the Governor.
IDEQ. n.d. Sole Source Aquifers. Accessed November 18, 2020. https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water- quality/ground-water/sole-source-aquifers/.
IDWR. 2020. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES STRATEGIC PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2020-2023. Strategic Plan, Boise: IDWR.
—. 2019. "News Release." Idaho Department of Water Resources. June 13. Accessed May 3, 2020. https://idwr.idaho.gov/files/news-release/20190613-news-release-2019-09.pdf.
—. n.d. Overview of the Idaho Water Supply Bank. Accessed November 08, 2020. https://idwr.idaho.gov/files/water-supply-bank/Bank-Overview-FAQ.pdf.
IDWR. 2019. Restoring the EAstern Snake River Plain Aquifer: A 10-year Progress Report on Sustainability Initiatives recommended in the ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan. State Legislature Progress Report, Boise: IDWR.
IDWR. 2017. Saving an Aquifer: Review of Implementation of the IGWA-SWC Settlement Agreement and Idaho’s Managed Aquifer Recharge Program. Conference Presentation, Boise: IDWR.
IDWR. 1992. Snake River Water Right Moratorium Order. Legal, Boise : Idaho Supreme Court.
IDWR. 2015. STRATEGIC AND ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN FY2016 - FY2019. Objectives, Boise: Idaho Department of Water Resources.
IWRB. 2019. Idaho Water Supply Bank 2019 Rental Pools Report. Annual Status Report, Boise: IDWR.
Jarvis, W. Todd. 2014. Contesting Hidden Waters: Conflict Resolution for Groundwater and Aquifers. New York: Routledge.
Jones, Jim. 2016. A Little Dam Problem. Caldwell: Caxton.
Kathryn Tacke. 2020. Idaho Cities Continue Strong Population Growth in 2019, Housing Growth Lags. Employment Report, Boise: Idaho Dept of Labor.
Ki, Scott. 2019. A Polluted Snake River and Toxic Algae Outbreaks. July 18. Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.idahoconservation.org/blog/a-polluted-snake-river-and-toxic-algae-outbreaks/.
81
Kliskey, Andrew, John Abatzoglou, Lilian Alessa, Crystal Kolden, David Hoekema, Brandon Moore, Sarah Gilmore, and Gary Austin. 2019. "Planning for Idaho’s waterscapes: A review of historical drivers and outlook for the next 50 years." Environmental Science & Policy 191-201.
Kyle's Converter. n.d. Convert Acre-feet to Gallons (u.s. Fluid). Accessed November 18, 2020. http://www.kylesconverter.com/volume/acre--feet-to-gallons-(u.s.-fluid).
Lackey, Robert. 2018. Is Science on a Path to Irrelevance in Policy and Management? Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Lancaster, Dale M. 1952. Measurement of Seepage Losses From Irrigation Canals. Inoformation, Denver: Bureau of Reclamantion.
Lederach, John Paul. 2003. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. New York: Good Books.
Lovin, Hugh T. 2017. Complexity in a ditch: Bringing Water to the Idaho Desert. Pulman: WSU Press.
Luck, Melissa. 2020. "State's Growth a major concern for Idaho residents." KXLY.com, January 27: Online.
Mader, Shelli, and Kan. Hays. 2010. Center pivot irrigation revolutionizes agriculture. May. Accessed May 14, 2020. https://www.thefencepost.com/news/center-pivot-irrigation-revolutionizes- agriculture/.
Maney, Gregory M., and Pamela E. Oliver. 2001. "Finding Collective Events: Sources, Searches, Timing." SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH 131-169.
Margat, Jean, and Jac van der Gun. 2013. Groundwater around the World: A Geographic Synopsis. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema.
Martin, J., and Jason A. Atkinson. 2015. A River Between Us. Directed by J. Martin. Performed by Jason A. Atkinson.
Marvel, Jon. 2016. "Let water users pay for Snake River Aquifer recharge." Idaho Statesman, Feb 13: Online.
Matthews, Mychel. 2018. "'Wildly' successful recharge program surpasses annual goal." MAGICVALLEY.COM, Apr 21: Online.
Maven. 2013. Maven's Notebook. Sept 3. Accessed June 8, 2020. https://mavensnotebook.com/2013/09/03/mavens-minutes-water-storage-part-2-how- groundwater-banking-is-done-a-look-at-three-successful-operations/.
McDonald, Dylan J. 2006. The Teton Dam Disaster. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing.
McInnerney, Joanne M., and Tim S. Roberts. 2004. Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. Queensland: Central Queensland University.
Micron Technologies. 2020. Micron QLC Solid-State Drive Innovation Speeds Data Center Hard Disk Drive Displacement. Online, Boise: Intrado Global Newswire .
82
Miller, John. 2006. "Feds drop fish passage requirement for Hells Canyon dams." The Lewiston Tribune, Jan 26: Online.
Murray, Erin M. 2018. Idaho Water Use, 2015. Annual Summary, Boise: USGS.
National Park Service. 2008. National Historic Trails: Along The Snake River Plain Trhough Idaho. Accessed May 10, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/oreg/planyourvisit/upload/ID%20ATR%20IG%20Final.pdf.
Nepveux, Michael. 2020. Largest Decline in U.S. Dairy Farms in 15-Plus Years in 2019. Market Analysis, D.C.: Farm Bureau Federation.
Oregon State University. 2020. Basins at Risk. Accessed November 18, 2020. https://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/content/basins-risk.
Oregon Wild. 2019. Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://oregonwild.org/waters/klamath/refuges.
Patton, Brian. 2011. "Eastern Snake River Plain Managed Aquifer Recharge Program." US Bureau of Reclamation. Feb 15. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.usbr.gov/pn/studies/henrysfork/meetings/2011-02-15/hf-espa-recharge- feb2011.pdf.
Patton, Brian, interview by Rachel Cohen. 2020. Five Years After Water Rights Agreement, Idaho's Largest Aquifer Is Improving (July 13).
Peñuelas, Josep, Jordi Sardans, Albert Rivas‐ubach, and Ivan A. Janssens. 2011. "The human‐induced imbalance between C, N and P in Earth's life system." Global Change Biology 3-6.
Perry, David A., Ram Oren, and Stephen C. Hart. 2008. Forest Ecosystems. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Peterson, Molly. 2016. "In the Klamath River Basin, Water Rights Are Personal." KQED, Nov 23: Online.
Petrich, Christian, Margie Wilkins, Tondee Clark, and Tony Morse. 2002. Idaho Canal System: Canals & Irrigation. November. Accessed May 12, 2020. http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/cnlsirr/cnlfr.htm.
Phil Roberts. 2013. New History of Wyoming, Chapter 13: Water and Irrigation. Accessed May 14, 2020. http://www.uwyo.edu/robertshistory/new_history_of_wyoming_chapter_13_water.htm.
Ramseth, Luke, and Bryan Clark. 2016. "40 years later, remembering Idaho’s Teton Dam collapse." Idaho Statesman, Jun 5: Online.
Rose, James D. 2011. "Diverse Perspectives on the Groupthink - Theory – A Literary Review." Emerging Leadership Journeys 37-57.
Sahl, Jake. 2020. Deschutes River Conservancy, Understadning the Deschutes Dams - Part One. Accessed May 30, 2020. https://www.deschutesriver.org/blog/deschutes-river-dams-history/.
83
Slaughter, Richard A. 2012. Institutional History of the Snake River 1850-2004 . Historical Analysis, Moscow: University of Washington .
Smith, Karl A. 1995. "Cooperative learning: effective teamwork for engineering classrooms." Engineering Education for the 21st Century 13-18.
Stamm, Gilbert G. 1976. "After Teton." Edited by Kathy Wood Loveless. Reclamation era 1-27.
Stapilus, Randy. 2014. "Snake River Basin Adjudication: A success story." Idaho Press, Aug 31: Online.
Strong, Clive J., and Michael C. Orr. 2016. " Understanding the 1984 Swan Falls Settlement." Idaho Law Review 224-270.
Study.com. 2020. Idaho Career Guide: Fastest Growing Idaho (ID) Careers. July 13. Accessed November 11, 2020. https://study.com/articles/Idaho_Career_Guide%3A_Fastest_Growing_Idaho_%28ID%29_Caree rs.html.
Talley, Jared L., Jen Schneider, and Eric Lindquist. 2016. "A simplified approach to stakeholder engagement in natural resource management: the Five-Feature Framework." Ecology and Society online.
Tate, Kristen. 2020. "Americans leave large cities for suburban areas and rural towns." The Hill, July 5: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/505944-americans-leave-large-cities-for-suburban-areas- and-rural-towns.
The Nature Conservancy. 2014. Upper Snake River Basin Water Stewardship Assessment. Water Stewardship Assesment, UNK: The Nature Conservancy.
The State of Idaho. 1990. 1990 Fort HAll Indian Water Rights Agreement. Formal Agreement, Boise: IDWR.
Tominaga, Lynn, and Chris James. 2012. "Point/Counterpoint: What Is the Best Approach to Aquifer Management in the Valley?" MagicValley.com, Jul 22: Online.
Tuthill Jr., David R., and Ronald D. Carlson. 2018. "Incentivized Managed Aquifer Recharge: basin scale implementation provides water for private users, groundwater districts, municipalities and others." The Water Report 11-20.
USMC. 2016. Marine Corps Planning Process. Quantico: Marine Corps Combat Development Command.
Vincent, Sean, Brian Patton, and Allan Wylie, interview by Samantha Wright. 2016. Watering Idaho: One Chart Explains 100 Years Of The Eastern Snake River Plain (Sep 19).
Water Education Foundation. n.d. Acre Foot. Accessed November 18, 2020. https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/acre-foot.
—. 2020. Klamath River Basin Chronology. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/klamath-river-basin-chronology.
84
Yoffe, Shira, Aaron T. Wolf, and Mark Giordano. 2003. "CONFLICT AND COOPERATION OVER INTERNATIONAL FRESHWATER: RESOURCES: INDICATORS OF BASINS AT RISK." JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1109-1126.
Yost, Joe. 2003. Milner Dam. Accessed May 14, 2020. http://twinfallscanal.com/milner-dam/.
85