DOCSLIB.ORG

Palouse Groundwater Basin Water Supply Alternatives Analysis Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Palouse Groundwater Basin Water Supply Alternatives Analysis Report March 2017 Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee Palouse Groundwater Basin Water Supply Alternatives Analysis Report Prepared for Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee/University of Idaho March 2017 Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee Palouse Groundwater Basin Water Supply Alternatives Analysis Report Prepared for Prepared by Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee/University Anchor QEA, LLC of Idaho 8033 West Grandridge Blvd., Suite A Kennewick, Washington 99336 and HDR Engineering Inc. 2805 St Andrews Loop Pasco, Washington 99301 with EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8019 W. Quinault Ave., Suite 201 Kennewick, Washington 99336 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Palouse Groundwater Basin Overview ................................................................. 1 1.2 Prior Studies and Related Planning Documentation ............................................................................. 3 1.3 Study Process Overview .................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Water Demands and Regional Supplemental Supply Target ......................................... 5 2.1 Historical and Recent Water Use in the Palouse Basin ......................................................................... 6 2.2 Population and Projected Growth in the Palouse Basin ...................................................................... 7 2.3 Demands with Additional Water Conservation ....................................................................................... 8 2.4 Summary Results ................................................................................................................................................. 8 3 Projects Evaluated .................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Project and Management Action Summaries ....................................................................................... 12 3.2 Project Screening ............................................................................................................................................. 21 3.2.1 Step 1: High-level Screening ........................................................................................................ 21 3.2.2 Step 2: Detailed Screening ............................................................................................................ 22 4 Formulate and Analyze Alternatives .................................................................................. 28 4.1 Alternative Descriptions ................................................................................................................................. 28 4.1.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 28 4.1.2 Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 29 4.1.3 Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 29 4.1.4 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 29 4.2 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................................ 31 4.2.1 Criteria Assessed Monetarily ........................................................................................................ 31 4.2.2 Criteria Assessed Quantitatively ................................................................................................. 33 4.2.3 Criteria Assessed Qualitatively .................................................................................................... 33 4.3 Evaluation Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 35 4.3.1 Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions ......................................................................................... 35 4.3.2 Modeling Uncertainty and Risk ................................................................................................... 36 4.3.3 Cost and Schedule Uncertainty ................................................................................................... 37 4.3.4 Yield Uncertainty ............................................................................................................................... 42 4.4 Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Palouse Basin Groundwater Supply Alternatives Analysis i March 2017 5 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 47 6 Data Gaps, Information Needs, and Next Steps, ............................................................ 49 6.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 50 6.2 Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 50 6.3 Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 51 6.4 Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 6.5 First Priority Actions for Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 53 7 References ................................................................................................................................ 55 TABLES Table 1 Summary Projected Palouse Groundwater Basin Water Demands ...................................... 9 Table 2 Water Supply Projects Summary ....................................................................................................... 14 Table 3 Step 1 High-level Screening Results ................................................................................................ 21 Table 4 Annual Yield Categories ........................................................................................................................ 23 Table 5 Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee (PBAC): Water Supply Alternatives – Preliminary Screening Results ............................................................................................................. 24 Table 6 Alternative Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................ 31 Table 7 Assessment of Qualitative Criteria and Impacts to Cost/Schedule .................................... 40 Table 8 Uncertainties in Cost Contingencies ................................................................................................ 40 Table 9 Uncertainties in Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 42 Table 10 Uncertainties in Yield .............................................................................................................................. 43 Table 11 Summary of Key Findings ..................................................................................................................... 48 Table 12 First Priority Actions ................................................................................................................................ 53 FIGURES Figure 1 Palouse Groundwater Basin .................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Historical and Current Groundwater Levels ..................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Water Levels – Grande Ronde Short-term ....................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Palouse Basin Historic Groundwater Pumping, 1992 to 2016 ................................................ 7 Figure 5 Overall Palouse Basin – Historic Supply and Demand Forecast Data ............................... 11 Figure 6 Calculation for Social Cost of Increased GHG and CACs ........................................................ 36 Figure 7 Diagram of Monte Carlo Simulation Process ............................................................................... 37 Figure 8 Example Probability Distribution Curves........................................................................................ 39 Palouse Basin Groundwater Supply Alternatives Analysis ii March 2017 Figure 9 Cost-effectiveness Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... 44 Figure 10 Water Delivery Reliability Comparison
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Trust: Application of the Public Trust Doctrine to Groundwater Resources
    TRUSTING THE PUBLIC TRUST: APPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE TO GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Jack Tuholske∗ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................................................................190 I. An Overview of Groundwater Problems in the United States...............193 A. Running Low in the High Plains .....................................................193 B. A Garden in the Wilderness.............................................................195 C. Land Subsidence...............................................................................197 D. Natural Resource Extraction............................................................198 E. Bottled Water: Groundwater as a Consumer Commodity .............200 F. Saltwater Intrusion: The Sea Cometh..............................................201 G. Reduced Surface Flows ...................................................................202 H. Groundwater Depletion: A Pervasive Nationwide Problem .........203 II. A Brief Overview of Groundwater Law ................................................204 A. Common Law Applied to Groundwater .........................................205 B. Statutory Overlays............................................................................211 III. The Public Trust and Groundwater.......................................................214 A. Brief Historical Overview of the Public Trust Doctrine................214 B. New Applications of the Public Trust Doctrine .............................216 IV. Groundwater
    [Show full text]
  • Snake Plain Aquifer Technical Report
    SNAKE PLAIN AQUIFER TECHNICAL REPORT September 1985 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SNAKE PLAIN AQUIFER TECHNICAL REPORT September 1985 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 SNAKE PLAIN AND AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS 5 Hydrology 5 Soils and Climate 16 Land Use and Groundwater Use 32 Water Quality 36 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES 48 Land Spreading: Septage and Sludge 50 Land Applied Wastewaters 54 Injection Wells 57 Well Drilling 61 Radioactive Materials Sources 62 Surface Run-off 64 Feedlots and Dairies 66 Petroleum Handling and Storage 68 Oil and Gas Pipelines 72 Mining and Oil and Gas Drilling 73 Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites 74 Pits, Ponds and Lagoons 77 Pesticides 79 Septic Tank Systems 86 Hazardous Substances 89 Geothermal Wells 93 Fertilizer Application 94 Rating and Ranking the Potential Contaminant 95 Sources SUMMARY 99 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Snake Plain Governing Jurisdictions 34 2 Primary Drinking Water Standards 42 3 Drinking Water Standards for Selected Radionuclides 45 4 Characteristics of Septage 50 5 Septage Quantities Disposed on the Snake Plain and Statewide 51 6 Estimated Contaminant Quantities from Septage on the Snake Plain 51 7 Sludge Quantities Disposed on the Snake Plain 52 8 Estimated Pollutant Quantities from Sludge Disposal on the Snake Plain 52 9 Sources of Land-Applied Wastewaters on the Snake Plain 54 10 Characteristics of Selected Wastewaters 55 11 Inventoried Injection Wells within
    [Show full text]
  • Testing and Demonstration Sites for Innovative Groundwater
    EPA 542-R-97-002 January 1997 Testing and Demonstration Sites For Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Technology Innovation Office Washington, DC 20460 Notice This material has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under contract number 68-W6-0014. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Foreword The mission of U.S. EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO) is to promote the use of new, less costly, and more effective technologies to clean up contaminated soil and ground water at the nation's hazardous waste sites. The availability of public demonstration and testing sites is a key factor in the development of adequate remediation technologies. TIO recognizes the need for extensive field demonstrations and verification testing of these technologies prior to general acceptance and full commercialization. Demonstration sites are relatively scarce and demonstrations involve some degree of financial and environmental risk. Ground-water contamination has been found at 85% of hazardous waste sites, and few efficient, cost-effective ground-water cleanup technologies are available. The difficulty in defining both contaminated areas and the subsurface environment compounds the need for diverse technologies and adequate demonstration sites to test these technologies. In addition, regulators that select or approve the use of cleanup technologies are usually reluctant to turn to innovative technologies if they lack demonstrated cost and performance information. This report describes fifteen publicly-sponsored facilities available for testing and demonstration of ground-water technologies. It is intended to help technology developers choose appropriate demonstration sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Lutter B(Iacks Sui G a F P R Oogram
    Aviationn educaticon f eas i t ie!e^ B lL Minors'' return] unnJikely — z m a s m I................... ... , --------T“ t -Cla&sifigl e d Y o u r _ 5 1061 Kawasaki 13 Drilling C y c l e ■ ^ a r g a s- i ' - d/oss. low rrtlos; o 7 / 2 * ) / S « iTTdrr/^ eondlilon, Call 73 i/AR COPP-- j darv Of 733-1164 ov S h o p ? S 3BD £ source SALT C4 j H 9 — B1 r La<E CITY ut ■- - i' Marketp,place D3 I = 1 5 ’ CopyrtQhlolM g * — > i W U.0lcV«Jl«yttaW.(W| 3 5 ^ • _____ _________84th_year,8 4 m Np: l.Zg. ' TwinFalls,Its, Id ah o T hlursday. u n June 22. 1989 S h o ul i d b wriedr^W) i a s t e bye d u gf u p ? b u r nl ; i n g ByN. S. NOKKENTVEY ED I------^------- Tlmea-News writer ■ 's.^- IDAHO FALLS-LikLike archaeolo- '• p r o t <e c t e d1 a c t , — rT-gists-uncoverinp-a-pn-prcdous-roJie,- ------------ — r — men With ehovels pngiingerly-remove ,the la s t lay ers of d irtrt ffrom barrels and boxes o f radioactiv<tive waste. ~T he yearTn975romand otticials at V --------------------- the Idaho Nationalll Engineering e o u nt d e el a i f e s ^ Laboratory are tryinying to Icam whether the buried wiw aste c a n bc. The Associated Press . retrieved for perman storage ^ C S5S S 1decision-~A7 elsew here. WASHINGTON — BBurning the - ‘-.J - r r A I le r - m b r e than ot 3(deca'dc in ■m-of-politicftl-nDvrspaperr ground, the barrels atare corroded, _ protest is protecteded by .
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Butte City 7.5' Quadrangle, Butte County, Idaho
    IDAHO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TECHNICAL REPORT 20-04 BOISE-MOSCOW IDAHOGEOLOGY.ORG HELMUTH AND OTHERS CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS EXPLANATION of MAP UNITS Paleozoic strata of the southern Arco Hills Scot Peak Formation (upper Mississippian)–Medium gray, silty, sandy, with gray to orange Geologic Map of the Butte City 7.5' Quadrangle, Butte County, Idaho Names, unit abbreviations, and unit colors have been adopted from the previously published maps, “Geologic Msp map of the Craters of the Moon 30'x60' quadrangle, Idaho”: USGS Scientific Investigations Map I-2969, scale chert, thin- to thick-bedded, ledge- to cliff-forming limestone; weathers light gray with scalloped by Alluvial and Colluvial Deposits 1:100,000, by Kuntz, M.A., Betty Skipp, D.E. Champion, P.B. Gans, and D.P. Van Sistine, 2007, and “Geologic texture. Abundant fossils include crinoids and rugose corals among fossil hash. Gradationally 1 1 2 3 Map of the Arco 30'×60' quadrangle, south-central Idaho”, by Skipp, Betty, L.G . Snider, S.U. Janecke, and M.A. underlain by the Middle Canyon Formation; estimated thickness of 150 m in the southern Arco Samuel L. Helmuth , Evan J. Martin , Mary K.V. Hodges , and Duane E. Champion Lava Field, Cones, Kuntz, 2009, Idaho Geological Survey Geologic Map G M-47, map scale 1:100,000. Names for lava fields are Hills (Skipp and others, 2009). and Eruptive-Fissure derived from titled vents and buttes on the 1:24,000-scale topographic base map or from named vents on 1 National Association of Geoscience Teachers/U.S. Geological Deposits adjacent quadrangles.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantification and Mapping of Satellite Driven Surface Energy
    remote sensing Article Quantification and Mapping of Satellite Driven Surface Energy Balance Fluxes in Semi-Arid to Arid Inter-Mountain Region Bibek Acharya 1, Vivek Sharma 1,* , James Heitholt 2, Daniel Tekiela 2 and Fabian Nippgen 3 1 Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA; bibekacharya@ufl.edu 2 Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA; [email protected] (J.H.); [email protected] (D.T.) 3 Department of Ecosystem Sciences and Management, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: vsharma1@ufl.edu; Tel.: +1-352-294-6725 Received: 29 October 2020; Accepted: 5 December 2020; Published: 8 December 2020 Abstract: Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) estimates, on a regional scale, hold enormous potential in managing surface and groundwater resources. This is particularly important for the headwater state of Wyoming, which provides water to found major river basins of the US. In this study, METRIC (Mapping evapotranspiration at high resolution with internalized calibration), a satellite-based image processing model, was used to map and quantify daily, monthly, and seasonal ETc and other energy balance fluxes, i.e., net radiation (Rn), sensible heat (H), and soil heat flux (G) dynamics for different land-use classes. Monthly and seasonal ETc estimated were further used to approximate regional water consumption patterns for different land-use types for nine irrigation districts in semi-arid to arid intermountain region of Big Horn Basin (BHB), Wyoming.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Depletion: a Global Problem
    Groundwater depletion: A global problem Leonard F. Konikow · Eloise Kendy Keywords Over-abstraction · Groundwater managment · 2003). In some of the most depleted areas, use of groundwater for Groundwater development · Groundwater depletion irrigation has become impossible or cost prohibitive (Dennehy et al. 2002). In some cases, removing the most easily recoverable fresh groundwater leaves a residual with inferior water quality. This is Introduction due, in part, to induced leakage from the land surface, confining layers, or adjacent aquifers that contain saline or contaminated In the past half-century, ready access to pumped wells has ushered water. In coastal areas, where many of the world’s largest cities are in a worldwide “explosion” of groundwater development for mu- located, the available volume of fresh groundwater is reduced by nicipal, industrial, and agricultural supplies. Globally, groundwater 3 seawater intrusion and upconing, which in turn are caused by head withdrawals total 750–800 km /year (Shah et al. 2000). Economic declines in the aquifer. gains from groundwater use have been dramatic. However, in many As depletion continues worldwide, its impacts worsen, por- places, groundwater reserves have been depleted to the extent that tending the need for objective analysis of the problem and its well yields have decreased, pumping costs have risen, water quality possible solutions. This essay examines future options for evalu- has deteriorated, aquatic ecosystems have been damaged, and land ating and managing groundwater depletion in a changing physical has irreversibly subsided. and social landscape. Groundwater depletion is the inevitable and natural consequence of withdrawing water from an aquifer. Theis (1940) showed that pumpage is initially derived from removal of water in storage, but over time is increasingly derived from decreased discharge and/or Quantifying the magnitude of depletion increased recharge.
    [Show full text]
  • Sole Source Aquifer Designations in EPA, Region 9
    United States Environmental Region 9 Ground Water EPA Protection Agency Office (WTR-9) JUNE 2000 Sole Source Aquifer Designations in EPA, Region 9 The U.S. EPA’s Sole Source Aquifer Program was established under Section 1424(e) of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA.) Since 1977, it has been used by communities to Scotts Valley help prevent contamination of groundwater from federally- funded projects. It has increased public awareness of the Fresno vulnerability of groundwater resources. How did this program star t? SDWA regulations implementing the sole source aquifer statute were first Campo-Cottonwood Ocotillo/Coyote Wells proposed in 1977 for the Edwards Underground Reservoir in San Antonio, Texas. These regulations guided U.S. EPA in Santa Cruz - Avra Naco Bisbee the subsequent designation of 64 sole source aquifers across the United States. Oahu Molokai What does the Sole Source Aquifer Program do? The Guam (not pictured) Sole Source Aquifer program allows for EPA environmental review of any project which is financially assisted by federal grants or federal loan guarantees. These projects are evaluated to determine whether they have the potential to contaminate a sole source aquifer. If there is such a potential, local agency may petition the U.S. EPA for sole source aquifer the project should be modified to reduce or eliminate the risk, designation, provided the petition includes sufficient or federal financial support may be withdrawn. This doesn’t hydrogeologic information. An outline describing how such mean that the Sole Source Aquifer program can delay or stop petitions should be prepared is contained in The Sole Source development of landfills, roads, publicly owned wastewater Aquifer Designation Petitioner Guidance, copies of which are treatment works or other facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Snake Subbasins Management Plan
    Middle Snake Subbasins Management Plan May 2004 Written by Ecovista Contracted by Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................5 1.1 Contract Entities and Planning Participants....................................................................................6 1.1.1 Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Indian Reservation.............................................6 1.1.2 Northwest Power Conservation Council ...........................................................................7 1.1.3 Bonneville Power Administration......................................................................................7 1.1.4 Project Team......................................................................................................................7 1.1.5 Planning Team...................................................................................................................7 1.1.6 Technical Teams ................................................................................................................8 1.2 Public Outreach and Government Involvement..............................................................................9 1.2.1 Technical Team Participation ...........................................................................................9 1.2.2 Planning Team Participation.............................................................................................9 1.2.3 Public
    [Show full text]
  • CGLPP Workshop 2 Discussion Papers
    COMPARATIVE GROUNDWATER LAW AND POLICY PROGRAM WORKSHOP 2: GROUNDWATER SCIENCE, POLICY, PARTNERSHIPS, AND MARKETS JUNE 20-22, 2012 DISCUSSION PAPERS1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory Notes 2 Discussion Paper 1: Groundwater and the Science-Policy Interface 3-6 Discussion Paper 2: Groundwater and Uncertainty 7-10 Discussion Paper 3: Groundwater and Communication 11-17 Discussion Paper 4: Groundwater and Partnerships 18-21 Discussion Paper 5: Groundwater Trade 22-25 Discussion Paper 6: Aquifer Storage and Recovery 26-29 Discussion Paper 7: Mitigating the Impacts of Pumping Groundwater 30-32 Discussion Paper 8: Groundwater Buybacks 33-37 1 By Meg Casey, J.D. & M.E.L.P. 2011, Vermont Law School; and Rebecca Nelson, Program Leader, Comparative Groundwater Law & Policy Program, LL.B./B.E. 2005, University of Melbourne, J.S.M. 2010, Stanford University. 1 INTRODUCTORY NOTES These short papers are intended to help stimulate discussion and provide some background to the variety of approaches that different jurisdictions take to key groundwater issues (“what we know”), each of which is much more complex and multi-faceted than these papers can fully explore. We also present a condensed series of questions to focus our discussions in relation to each topic (“what we need to know”). We hope that these papers serve as a bridge over the Pacific in relation to terminology and perspective, and an entry point into more detailed dialogue. In these papers, we discuss various aspects of groundwater law, policy and management. Each of these involves different actors and approaches to dealing with groundwater planning or groundwater problems. To ensure that our discussions are clear about these differences, we propose the definitions that follow.
    [Show full text]
  • Seow I Lack ^Cle of Ski A;
    \ . - M S Catible, TVJefifunds posssible— BJlTBYoncc:os down F.Redskins -— c r ^ . i ____- -------------- C l B s a i f i e c T o u r r ^ ^ I. -.V Inoducud lor Ch<icir H I P a r eis closinijics: Hanocrannd^orutiatai s r C l o c k s~win , clock plus woodon.Olll ____ ilmlf dotki, loppn-j tiy f ■ [uigrguii'a Cj'II .I3C-303--£ r Shop . I S c P c -----------' ' N easily-— e i a m b l e fo rr p a t r o n s5 - D 1 - X -1 ‘ , l t l > ^ ■ )_ ■ fc < L A _ - i mr i T W Y S ' © a ... 8 4Uh th yoar, No. 325 T w in Falls, [dla a^ h o Tuer.day, NovonyonibLT 21, 1989 s e f e j ie c t s i l li m i t s c M-U.SS o a i d , i ® E J . — ------ The- A ssu d .itv il-|»n !?K— : support lor U,.S.'lriends dedetermmmg continued 1J,S,=TsupporJ Opponeniss o |- U .S . a id lim i cd UM.I elccied .ilemoei.ilie.iUv dcclcdd o giiveniiiieiit and allies ar<around the world. fo3for 1:1.... Salvador^lim '.ule-wwai^iuy : lo.. liiislt dviringa iin appearance. Ill____ :-•Ilieie i IS a Ircelv e[ “ ‘T^'W ASl llNGTOhr“ TIriic House on kiaho's; rcpre.scnialives.re Democraf 3. ^cin^ii^oTin?hTrsrrii W;ishMigiMn'. -V.’I'veimnirnr ‘'v dning tlieir vcn;iv heiTi iTiirriuid le n n ir T"Tinn rm ni ihc iieeduiii • ■ .
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue: a Brief History Behind Managed Recharge & Conjunctive Management for Idaho’S Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer Aquifer Restoration
    RESTORING A WORLD CLASS AQUIFER In This Issue: A BRIEF HISTORY BEHIND MANAGED RECHARGE & CONJUNCTIVE MANAGEMENT FOR IDAHO’S EASTERN SNAKE PLAIN AQUIFER Aquifer Restoration ................ 1 by Noah Stewart-Maddox, Paul Thomas, William Parham (Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho) & Augmenting Wesley Hipke (Idaho Department of Water Resources) Streamflow ................. 10 Introduction THE EASTERN SNAKE RIVER PLAIN AQUIFER The Business The Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA) underlies the Eastern Snake Plain in the of Water ....................... 18 southeastern portion of Idaho and is one of the world’s largest and most productive aquifers. The ESPA covers 10,800 square miles of semi-arid plains surrounded by mountains. A key feature of the area is the Snake River, entering from the ESPA’s eastern boundary northeast of Idaho Falls, Idaho, and carving its way along the southern boundary of the aquifer (see Map, page 2). The aquifer and river have been critical to the economic Water Briefs ............... 27 development of the area and the transformation of the Eastern Snake Plain from semi-arid plains into the breadbasket of Idaho. Calendar ..................... 31 Some key statistics demonstrate the importance of water in this area: • Approximately 2.1 million acres are irrigated across the ESPA (60% of the State’s total irrigated acres) • 50% of Idaho’s power needs (IWRB, 2009) are in the area • Over 70% of trout production in North America (NASS, 2018) occurs in the area • Fourth largest milk producer in the United States (United Dairymen of Idaho, 2017) is Upcoming Stories: located there • The Magic Valley, was ranked as a top 12 US manufacturing community and ranked in the top third of the US for food processing (Industry Week Magazine, 2015).
    [Show full text]