Idahos Ground Water Vulnerability and Concern in Relation to Water Rights

Jace Riley

Table of Contents
1

4
5
6

Introduction
1.1Idaho An Agricultural State Economy
1.2Water Environment
1.3Current System to Combat the Drought
1.4Introduction to Ground Water and Water Rights
Design & Method
2.1Data Origination
2.2Columbia River Basin
2.3Snake River Plain
2.4Local Communities and Water Rights
2.5Data Not Used
Results
3.1Above Scale Figure and Symbology
3.2Focal Scale Figure and Symbology
3.3Below Scale Figure and Symbology
Discussion
4.1Datas Uses and Findings
4.2Past, Current, and Proposed Management Interventions
Implementation
5.1Recommendations
5.2Cost/Benefit Analysis and Conclusion
Literature Cited

1.1
Idaho is a water rich state, but has been in a consistently increasing drought.
This poses many issues to the environmental, economic, and social systems. To
explain this further, Idaho is the third largest water user in the United States and
consumes around 19.5 billion gallons per day. It is the fourth largest user of
groundwater, which comprises only 22 percent of water use but is the majority of
the drinking water consumed. On average each person uses about 233 gallons a
day, and that is not included in the agricultural aspect of use. This average is only
1.7 percent of Idahos daily water use. 85 percent of the water use is for agricultural
reasons. Idaho ranks first in production of potatoes, commercial trout, and barley; it
is second in spearmint, and third in onions, peppermint, hops, and sugar beets.
(Kenny. 2009)
Again, Idaho is in a continuing drought, and as we can see by how much
water the state consumes, there needs to be some decision making and solid plans
for future sustainability put into place. There has been talk throughout the years,
but it seems to have been difficult to get legislation for plans due to conservative
conservationists. When preservation of nature aligns with preservation of water

rights, Idahoans stand firmly together. When nature conservation imperils water
rights, they denounce the former. (Orgill. 2009) Water rights come first to the
average Idahoan. While it is important to preserve water rights as that is the life
force for the agricultural aspect of the state, the use of water could be improved
and made more efficient to where some of the focus can be towards the
environment, which is also an important factor to the water quality.
1.2
The majority of Idahos population as well as their agriculture is within the
Snake River Plain, which begins outside of Jackson, Wyoming and ends just before
Ontario, Oregon. As a result of the population and agricultural havens being within
the Snake River Plain, they are heavily reliant on the watersheds of the mountains
to the North and the South of the plain. These watersheds fill the lakes and
reservoirs, which the farmers heavily rely on for irrigation canals. The majority of
precipitation is within snowpack in the mountain regions. As the snow melts the
water flows down the watersheds and fills the lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. With
Idaho being in a drought, which generally does not get much precipitation in the
spring or summer months, it relies on this snowpack which has been steadily
declining over the years. As a result the reservoirs do not retain the water long as
they were never full. The lakes have not been full in years. It is not yet to the level
of drought as California, but it is still a major issue, that may soon be as bad. (Idaho
Conservation League. 2016)
The snowpack and precipitation is declining year by year, and one of the
problems that arise from this is that there is no real plan in Idaho to resolve this.
The Water Supply Committee has stated If severe water shortage seems possible,
the committee may develop a formal contingency plan. Is this not something that
should already be developed? A current plan is important so that there is one step
less in the process to combat a water shortage. The committee has also stated that
A drought plan was developed and the Water Data Subcommittee implemented a
monitoring program. A monitoring program is extremely important, but a
contingency plan should follow.
Flood irrigation is a problem as well, as almost half of Idahos cultivated land
is watered this way. Flood irrigation systems require large heads of water at
infrequent intervals which allows the water supply to be located at a more remote
location. (Brown. 2008) Sprinkler, or center pivot systems require a constant water
source, but uses far less water over time. The water in flood irrigation also has the
tendency to not be reused because far too much of it is evaporated. The positive to
flood irrigation is that it can be accessed in the remote locations, but for Idaho,
most places have a constant water source through the irrigation canals and can
easily accommodate for the sprinkler irrigation systems.
1.3
Idaho Power has implemented a program of cloud seeding. Cloud seeding is a
form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of
precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve
as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within
the cloud. The processes to cloud seeding are either through probes from
generators or aircraft. Cloud Seeding is somewhat controversial in multiple aspects.

The chemicals used are poisonous to people, though by the time the precipitation
hits the ground it is considered safe. A question to be asked is how cloud seeding
will affect the areas that may have received the precipitation from those clouds. It
has however been fairly effective for the Idaho region. One can look at this slide
show from Idaho Power for more information. There was not available data to be
placed into the socio-economic map to reference for more of a local scale.
https://www.idwr.idaho.gov/files/water-supply-committee/20160212-IPCO-CloudSeeding-Report.pdf
Research into cloud seeding, in Idaho, began in 1993, which commenced for
around 10 years before it was put into operation with the Payette Project Operation,
which had seven generators, and an airplane. From that point on it grew at a more
dramatic rate. Cloud seeding in Idaho saw large expansions in 2014 with 44 more
generators and two aircraft; and again in 2015 with 53 generators and three
aircraft. In the first two months of 2016, in Boise alone, there was approximately
500 generator hours of operation in cloud seeding. They had also conducted around
32 flight hours of cloud seeding. (Blestrud, 2016)
1.4
With the information previously listed, it is not difficult to understand why it is
important that a solution to the ground water use is found. The Snake River plane is
not also an issue for the state of Idaho. It is important for a much larger scale, and
that is the Columbia River Basin, which is made up of the Snake River, the Salmon
River, and the Columbia River. The Salmon and Snake Rivers help to feed the
Columbia River. If the ground water areas of vulnerability and concern continue to
have a drought year after year, it will likely affect much more than the Snake River
Plain. The culture of Idaho will likely be forced to change or at least the people will
be forced to have to accept that the environmental aspect of the rivers and
groundwater are important for the water rights to continue in the way that they
have been. The above scale is the Columbia River Basin, the focal scale is the Snake
River Plain, and the below scale is the local communities within the Snake River
Plain. Each are affected differently from the drought, including in environmental,
social, and economic differences.
2.1
There are not many government agencies that focus so much on geographic
information systems as the Idaho Department of Water Resources. This is where the
majority of the data was gathered and manipulated to represent the different focal
points, all of it except for the above scale. The above scale was all received from the
USGS National Hydrography Datasets (http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html.) This is the
dataset that shows the whole of the Columbia River Basin. All that was modified on
the basin was the symbology, and the scale in which the datasets are visible. The
basin has its visibility only from a distance and once zoomed in on the state of
Idaho it changes to the Ground Water Management areas, Vulnerability, and
Concern, as well as the Irrigation Consumptive Use. Each of these layers are visible
from the scale of the state of Idaho all of the way down to a building.
When the maps are zoomed in more, the scale of township, one can see the
name of towns as well as the Water Rights: Management Areas, Claims, point of
diversion, as well as areas of use. It is important to have this scale because one can

see that if the water rights are in an area of concern or has the vulnerability with a
drought then one can see the importance of understanding that the environment is
important to sustain and manage so that way the claim to the rights and use may
continue.
2.2
The above scale was meant to be more of an observatory scale, and the
viewer is able to make assumptions to what it may mean socially and economically.
It is a simple representation of the environmental aspect of the Columbia River
Basin. The basin consists of three main rivers, and some may argue a fourth. These
three are the Snake River, Salmon River, and the Columbia River. The argued river
would be the Boise River, which flows into the Snake River. These rivers cover three
states; Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. One may assume the affects these have as
a whole socially, economically, and environmentally for the three states.
2.3
The focal scale has the most data as it has the Ground Water Management
Areas, Ground Water Areas of Concern, Ground Water Vulnerability, and the
Irrigation Consumption datasets. This is to get the general idea of the issues that
Idaho is facing when it comes to the drought and concerns for the ground and
surface water in the area. Pretty much the entire area along the Snake River is an
area of high concern or vulnerability. If the water is to become contaminated or too
high of a drought the fallout will be drastic. This was important for determining its
effect on the economic and social systems in the state. If the area becomes a
critical ground water area, then it becomes much more difficult for an applicant to
be approved a water right. When Idahoans are denied rights to the water they are
likely to become more disgruntled with the government. They may also be denied a
water right if they are requesting more water consumption for a crop than is needed
for their designated irrigation district. If they are denied than the local economy can
be affected by not having a right to the water, therefore the crop may not have as
much yield. There are so many factors that come out of an area of concern in
relation to the water rights.
2.4
The below scale is ultimately where you can see the effect on a local
community that these water rights might have. This scale shows the individual
types of claims to water rights whether it is a point of diversion or an area of use.
The areas of concern, ground water management areas, vulnerability, and irrigation
consumption are still visible at this scale, but it adds more including the cities and
the claims to water rights. It is easy to make assumptions as to the affects
economically and socially to the local communities with the datasets that are
available at this scale.
2.5
There are multiple datasets that were left out due to too much data that
would make it difficult to visualize the data; in other words it would have been too
busy. This data includes the correlation between the irrigation consumptive, in

accordance with the water rights, to the types of crops that were being watered.
This would have been an interesting bit of data to compare, but the dataset was just
too large. Idaho is such an agriculturally rich state, and the data too much to
compare. Other datasets that were related were the plans that Idaho currently has
in place to combat the drought, which would be the cloud seeding stations and
aircraft used to cloud seed. It is related, but was not necessary to be represented
within the data itself.
From the Vulnerability dataset I removed some of the data from having
representation. The reason for this was that the data did not fit the purpose of the
map itself. It consisted of very high, high, moderate, which were represented, and
not class, urban, water, and low vulnerability areas. We can assume in the data that
what is not represented on the map is not an area of concern or vulnerable to water
contamination at this time.
3.1

This static map is from QGIS and is simple and has only four main datasets. It
is the Columbia River Basin, with the river separating Washington and Oregon being
the Columbia River, the river on the southern side of Idaho is the Snake River, and
the river that is in the center of Idaho would be the Salmon River. The polygon that
is of a yellow tint is to represent the Columbia River Basin. For a more detailed

account for this and the other scales of this socio-ecological system see this web
map: http://arcg.is/1UjFxix
3.2

This static map from QGIS representing the focal scale of the Snake River
Plains ground water vulnerability and concerned areas. All is represented as
polygons. Ground Water Management Area is represented by semi-transparent
brown. Vulnerability is dark red for very high, red for high, and more of a tan for a
moderate concern. Ground water concern areas are in a dark red, covering more of
a generalized area than along the Snake River itself. There is also the Irrigation
districts which is the irrigation consumptive use dataset. This is represented by the
yellow tint throughout the state of Idaho with lines separating each polygon within
the state.
3.3
The below scale shows all of the previous datasets, but adds all Idaho cities
with a purple point as well as the claim point of diversion which is represented by a
color scale as per the type of diversion e.g. application, beneficial use, decreed,
license, permit, posted notice, reserved, and statutory claim. The purpose for
choosing this specific location in the below scales is that it is the largest producer of

potatoes in the state. It is a very important location for the entire state of Idaho,
economically, environmentally, as well as socially.

4.1
Water Rights Places of Use is there to represent the areas throughout the
state that the flowing water is actually used. This could include surface water or
ground water, like streams, rivers, or wells. It is also rights to the water that are
actually put to a beneficial use, so not including water rights that are stagnant or
not used. Uses may be consumptive, such as irrigation or domestic, or nonconsumptive, such as power or instream flow.
(https://research.idwr.idaho.gov/gis/GISScripts/metadata.aspx?
md=Spatial/WaterRights/WaterRightPlaceOfUse.shp.xml) The places of use data in
the map is represented by polygons, and the symbology is a color scale
representing the different types of use including; Application for a new Water right
or transfer, permit for applicant to develop the water use, license through which
Idaho Department of Water Resources has approved final configuration and
amounts, claim is a water right or beneficial use which has been claimed in an
adjudication, recommendation is what Idaho Department of Water Resources
recommends to the court during and adjudication, which could supersede the
license, or transfer of a portion of the water right or claim through a change in
ownership or elements of water rights or claim.

Water Rights Points of Diversion is to represent where the water is actually

diverted from flowing water, again surface water or ground water. It also again has
to be a right to the water that is put to beneficial use. These points of diversion are
represented in the other dataset or places of use. The water is ultimately diverted to
a place it can be used, or taken directly from the source, e.g. from the irrigation
canal. There are multiple representations of the data, which is in the same color
scheme as the places of use dataset, and are the same types.
Ground Water Management Areas are part of the Idaho ground water basin
that may be approaching the conditions of a critical ground water area. When an
application for a water right is places it must be determined that there is a sufficient
supply of water is available before the application is approved. The data is
represented as a polygon and labeled according to the area.
Ground Water Concern Areas are the areas within the critical ground water
area or ground water management areas. When it is within the management areas
there is no current statutory management policy when it comes to the concern
areas.
The Ground Water Vulnerability dataset represents the areas that may be
sensitive to water contamination in a generalized way. It is not a dataset that is
used to make specific policies for the government but for interpretive purposes only.
It however is a great representation of the land that has a higher vulnerability to
contamination or loss of water due to drought or overuse.
Irrigation Consumptive Use is a dataset that represents the districts that a
water right resides in. These districts are the Consumptive use irrigation, and field
head gate requirements for use in water right adjudications and for water right
licenses, permits, and transfers.
(https://research.idwr.idaho.gov/gis/GISScripts/metadata.aspx?
md=Spatial/Irrigation/ConsumptiveUse/consump_irr.shp.xml) This helps to
determine how inclusive the water rights may be when an application is sent in for
the right.
4.2
These datasets have all been used in different maps, but there has not truly
been a similar map, according to my knowledge, that has combined these specific
datasets at this focal point with the same scales above and below. The intent to use
these datasets was to show specifically that there will be consequences to water
rights if the environmental aspect of the drought are ignored over the water rights
themselves. After testing and manipulating the data in this map,
http://arcg.is/1UjFxix, it is easy to see that there is a strong correlation to the areas
of concern and vulnerability and the water rights. There have been implications of
the data gathered here, and that is a result of some of the datasets that I used. The
ground water management areas is a dataset that is a result of the past
implications of the drought. It is very difficult to be approved for a new water right
in these management areas, as well as the critical ground water areas.
Idaho Code Title 42, chapters 233a and 233b are current statutes that
regulate the permits, certifications, and licenses for receiving a water right within

the critical ground water areas and the ground water management areas.
Applications for permits made within a ground water management area shall be
approved by the director only after he has determined on an individual basis that
sufficient water is available and that other prior water rights will not be injured. The
director may require all water right holders within a designated water management
area to report withdrawals of ground water and other necessary information for the
purpose of assisting him in determining available ground water supplies and their
usage. (Idaho Code Title 42, chapter 233b) As seen in this quote from this statue
one can tell that there has already been legislation regulating water rights, and for
the farmers of Idaho, they disagree with this because they feel they own the water
itself. Water rights are not an ownership to the water. As a result of this legislation
itself it is important that the local communities in Idaho look at this focal scale
within this map so they may know the possible future of their water rights or in
applying for new ones.
5.1
I recommend the course of action to be in addition to the cloud seeding
solution to the problem, which would be to have the farmers that currently
participate in flood irrigation to switch to a pivot irrigation system. The water
consumption among farmers remains about the same every year, but the
population continues to increase; as a result there is a drastic change of usage
among the urban populations. Due to the increased usage, that is not likely to
decrease, I feel the best additional solution would be to change from flood irrigation
to the more modern and effective sprinkler (center pivot) irrigation. The other
solutions could be to line irrigation canals with a plastic lining, or to monitor soil
moisture and nutrients. I however see the most effective of these would be the pivot
irrigation systems.
Pivot irrigation systems are efficient and easy to use. It is essentially watering
crops as a front yard would be if you were to use your hose all of the way across the
yard, and poke holes all along it, while at the same time having the sprinkler head
at the end. The sprinklers then move in a circular motion from the center of the
hose to the last sprinkler head, all of the way around the land that is being
cultivated, thus the term center pivot. A positive of this system is that it does not
have much waste, and very little of the water is evaporated into the air, so the
crops use all that they are given.
The largest downfall to the center pivot irrigation systems is that they are
costly to install. There are grants given to farmers to help them switch but it is often
not enough. It is much cheaper for a farmer to use the flood irrigation tactic than
the pivot system, especially for smaller farms. It is generally not fiscally responsible
for a small time farmer to switch to a pivot system as they will not see much results
in their crop from switching. It is much easier for a big time farmer to afford this
system, and to see the difference in their crops as well as the amount of water
saved over time.
The biggest obstacles in getting farmers to switch to center pivot systems is
cost. The way to change this would be to find ways to cut the costs so that even
small farms may afford this system. Once they all change to these systems it may
slow the water usage, and allow for population growth, and possibly slow the effects
of the drought on both ground and surface water.

5.2
Not only would it be costly to switch from flood irrigation to the center pivot
systems, a lot of the farmers may not know that coming up with a solution on this
drought issue, may actually increase their water rights, and allow for more
applications to be put in for them. It would be beneficial to create a free and open
source software with these datasets listed, as well as more that would indicate the
amount of water used for each specific farm to show the differences and
implications if the farmers were to switch to pivot irrigation. It is a lot easier for an
individual to come to a conclusion from a visualization in this software. Another
cost, other than the initial switch to pivot irrigation would be the incentives, for
example, grants to help the farmer switch, as well as a tax break incentive.
Changing from a flood irrigation system to a pivot irrigation system would be
beneficially to the state of Idaho, by slowing down the effects of the drought,
lowering the consumption of water used by the farmers, as well as making cloud
seeding more effective because the ground and surface water would be in better
shape to begin with. The costs for this program, the software to educate, and the
action of switching, but the benefits outweigh them.

Resources
Blestrud, Derek. 2016. Idaho Power Companys Cloud Seeding Program.
https://www.idwr.idaho.gov/files/water-supply-committee/20160212-IPCO-CloudSeeding-Report.pdf. Accessed 5/2/2016.
Brown, Paul W. 2008. Flood vs. Pivot Irrigation for Forage Crops: What are the
Advantages and Disadvantages? http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/
+symposium/proceedings/2008/08-141.pdf. Accessed 5/1/2016.
Christner BC, Morris CE, Foreman CM, Cai R, Sands DC (2008). "Ubiquity of
Biological Ice Nucleators in Snowfall". Science 319 (5867): 1214.
Idaho Conservation League. 2016. Keeping Water in the Rivers. 2016
https://www.idahoconservation.org/issues/water/keeping-water-in-the-rivers.
Accessed 5/1/2016.
Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2016 State of Idaho Legislature.

http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title42/T42CH2SECT42-233b.htm.
Accessed June 3, 2016.
Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin,
M.A., 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.

Orgill, Kelly M., "Conservative Conservationists: Water Rights, Wilderness, and

Idahoan Political Identity" (2009). Boise State University Theses and
Dissertations. Paper 34.
http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/td/34
State of Idaho Legislature. 2016.
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title42/T42CH2SECT42-233b.htm. Accessed June
3, 2016.
USGS National Hydrography Datasets. 2016. (http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html.)
Accessed May-June 2016.