Two groups have been discussing water use in eastern Idaho in an effort to develop a blueprint for avoiding future conflicts.

Whether that can be accomplished in the near future remains up in the air, an expert says.

It’s been a hot, dry summer for Idaho water users, many of whom started the season with uncertainty over their water supply due to a curtailment order.

Issued by Mathew Weaver, director of the state Department of Water Resources, the order would have turned off water to groundwater pumpers and about 500,000 acres of farmland to address the shortfall forecast for senior water right holder Twin Falls Canal Co.

The governor’s office ultimately stepped in to broker a temporary settlement agreement. An agreement between water users was reached on June 20 and approved by Weaver.

The agreement set an Oct. 1 deadline for groundwater users and surface water users to submit an improved mitigation plan to avoid curtailments in the future.

Advisory committee

Gov. Brad Little issued an executive order — Protecting Idaho Water Sovereignty Act — on June 26. Among other things, it required the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer Groundwater Management Plan Advisory Committee to submit a groundwater management plan to Department of Water Resources by Sept. 1.

“There’s kind of two things happening in parallel,” said Thomas J. Budge of the Racine Olson law firm, attorney for the Idaho Ground Water Association.

One is the effort by the department to develop a groundwater management plan, and the other is the negotiations between the farmers to do essentially the same thing to come up with a better strategy for managing the resources, he said.

“They both have the same goal in mind … to stabilize the aquifer and to see that the seniors have enough water. They’re just different vehicles for achieving that goal. One vehicle is a management plan adopted by the director of the Department of Water Resources. The other vehicle is a negotiated settlement agreement between the parties, which the director could approve as a mitigation plan,” he said

The advisory committee was formed to develop a groundwater management plan. That committee does involve representatives of farmers, but it’s a broader group. It includes representatives of cities, Idaho Power Co. and fish farmers, he said.

Falling short

That larger group achieved a lot in terms of working through difficult issues and identifying potential solutions. But the committee did not ultimately develop a comprehensive management plan that everybody could support. That was its task, and that was unsuccessful, he said.

Instead, different groups represented on the committee submitted their own plans. Weaver can decide what he’s going to do with them. He’s not obligated to adopt any plan and he’s not under any strict timeline for adopting a management plan, he said.

“At this time, I think the director’s going to hang tight and see what comes of the discussions between the farmers,” he said.

Those discussions have been happening parallel to the advisory committee, and those are the discussions that are really bearing fruit and have the best chance of resulting in a new management framework going forward that both the senior and the junior water users can live with, he said.