|
Mar 27 - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Rocky Barker
The Idaho Statesman, Boise
About 500 cubic feet of water every second is running through the Northside Canal from Milner Dam near Burley west past Jerome, seeping water into the vast aquifer that has pitted eastern Idaho lawmakers against Idaho Power Co. The issue's resolution could raise rates for Idaho Power customers or force thousands of eastern and central Idaho farmers who pump water from the aquifer to dry up their fields. Diehl is allowed by law to begin diverting water from the Snake River at Milner March 15, even though the irrigation season begins April 1. Most years he waits, to allow reservoirs upstream to fill. But this year, he planned to open up early as a part of a plan to recharge the 10,000-square-mile aquifer that has been depleted by years of drought. Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and Idaho Power had been near an agreement to pay the utility up to $1.6 million for the value of electricity the diverted water won't produce at its hydroelectric dams on the Snake River from American Falls to Swan Falls. Diehl doesn't have to worry about paying Idaho Power because the Northside Canal has water rights that are older and senior to Idaho Power's rights. But he did have to deal with a broken headgate and other problems before he could begin diverting water into the canal March 21. "When I did my inspection I found some dead cows I had to remove first," Diehl said. The Northside Canal diversion is costing Idaho Power and its 455,000 customers. "But that's their right," said James Miller, Idaho Power's senior vice president of power supply. Diehl's private recharging program comes as the Senate Natural Resources Committee prepares for a hearing today on House Bill 800, which challenges Idaho Power's right to charge the state or irrigators for the water used to recharge the aquifer. The bill passed the House, setting up a Senate fight. Diehl is making moot the argument that passage of HB 800 is critical to starting a recharge program this year. His decision also co-opted Kempthorne's and Idaho Power's recharge program. What's left is a 22-year-old fight between groundwater pumpers in eastern Idaho and Idaho Power. At the heart of the issue is the meaning of the 1984 Swan Falls agreement between the state and Idaho Power Co. The company says it did not subordinate its water rights to recharging the aquifer. Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and Speaker Bruce Newcomb, R-Burley, say the company did. Water legislation approved in 1994 specifically supported Idaho Power's side in the argument. HB 800 was written to reverse it. But the 1984 Swan Falls agreement said no action of the Legislature could change the agreement, so attorneys for both sides agree the issue ultimately may have to be resolved in court. Still, the issue coming up for a vote today has become one of major conflicts before the 2006 Legislature. Both sides expect a close vote and doubt Newcomb will let the issue die if he loses in committee. Diehl, his canal company and other large canal companies with senior spring water rights in the Magic Valley are on Idaho Power's side, protecting what they consider the state's cardinal water right rule: first come, first served. So what's really at stake? Idaho Power takes campaign to ratepayers Idaho Power has run television ads and sent letters to its 455,000 customers warning that if the law passes it could cost them $80 million to $120 million. What the utility really means is if the law passes and a court upholds the attorney general's opinion, the state would have the right to reduce the flows in the Snake River from its high-water right of 17,250 cubic feet per second down to 5,600 cfs -- its winter minimum stream flow. By taking the water for recharge in high-water years, Idaho Power says its customers would lose some of the cost savings the utility passes along in good water years. Diverting water for recharge, Idaho Power officials say, also would reduce the company's capacity to meet peak demand in July, when it needs the most power. That would force the utility to build new power plants or purchase higher-cost power elsewhere. Idaho is exaggerating the impact of recharge, say experts for the Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, which includes farmers and communities that pump water from the aquifer. Only 170,000 acre feet of water can be reasonably charged into the aquifer annually, said Charles Brendecke, a hydrologist. That means the state never would reduce flows down to Idaho Power's winter minimum, Brendecke said. Also, most of the water recharged into the aquifer would eventually return to the river as springwater upstream of most of Idaho Power's hydro dams. The water would return later, but then it would produce power worth more money on the open market than in the spring when there is a surplus. "It's like putting the water in the bank," Brendecke said. A more realistic estimate of the impact on Idaho Power's customers would be $6 million annually, said Don Reading, an economist for Ben Johnson and Associates who used Brendecke's data. Over the long term, he said, Idaho Power would have a more stable or increased flow that would improve its peak capacity, not reduce it. Idaho Power's Miller doesn't buy their arguments. All recharge will do is let pumpers take more groundwater and allow them to continue to deplete the aquifer. "Ask yourself this," Miller said, "if all the water is coming back in, why do you take it out in the first place?" State has given Idaho Power free water When the Swan Falls Agreement was signed in 1984, all water above Idaho Power's minimum was placed into trust, allowing for future expansion of irrigation. But, groundwater pumpers argue, the water shortage limited development. State and federally funded programs -- including water releases to aid salmon, the buyout of farmers' water near Buhl and a new federal program to dry up to 100,000 acres of land irrigated with aquifer water -- all increased the flow of water through Idaho Power's turbines. "As far as I know, Idaho Power hasn't offered to pay you for that water," Newcomb said in a opinion article he wrote for the Twin Falls Times-News. "Idaho Power's customers are taxpayers, too," said Greg Panter, Idaho Power's vice president for public affairs. So who should pay to recharge the aquifer? For the last three years, farmers and others who pump water from the aquifer have been locked in a legal battle with other irrigators and fish farmers who use the springs that flow from it. At issue is balancing the state's "first-come, first-served" water law and its requirement for full economic development. Groundwater pumpers, whose rights are junior to most spring-water users, have been trying to offset the water lost to the senior spring users by purchasing water, shifting irrigation systems to surface water or paying farmers to quit pumping. The pumpers also have been buying water in reservoirs to supply the senior spring users. They pay $6 an acre-foot for the water, which they also have proposed using for recharge. Presumably, Diehl's Northside Canal could get the pumpers to pay the canal company for recharging in the future. But this year, he and his board considered recharge so important, they put their own water up for nothing. Idaho Power wants $50 an acre-foot for the water it gives up for recharge. If that price holds, ground-water pumpers say they can't recharge. "That puts us out of business," said Lynn Tominaga, executive director of the Ground Water Appropriators. Idaho Power President and Chief Executive Officer LaMont Keen said the ground-water pumpers and other farmers who are not their customers in eastern Idaho are trying to make Idaho Power the scapegoat for the depleted aquifer. "Decades of groundwater pumping and other uses have taken more water from the aquifer than nature has been able to replace," Keen said. "Idaho Power and our customers should not have to bear the financial burden." |
Consumers dragged into aquifer fight: Lawmakers' vote has implications for electric rates, E. Idaho farms |