-
Monday, April 30th, 2012
The Summer Water Law and Resource Issues Seminar
The Summer Water Law and Resource Issues Seminar will be held on June 18-19, 2012 in Sun Valley.
A registration form, hotel ...
read more -
Wednesday, March 28th, 2012
Henry’s Fork Watershed Council Meeting, April 10th
The Henry’s Fork Watershed Council will be meeting Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at the SpringHill Marriott in Rexburg.
The preliminary agenda ...
read more -
Wednesday, December 28th, 2011
The Idaho Irrigation Equipment Show & Conference
The Idaho Irrigation Equipment Show & Conference is Thursday, January 5, 2012 at the Shilo Inn in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
The trade show and classes ...
read more -
Monday, December 12th, 2011
EPA Requests Proposals for Urban Waters Small Grants
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects to award between $1.8 to $3.8 million in funding for projects across the ...
read more -
Wednesday, May 4th, 2011
More on Salmon Recovery - It's Not all Gloom and Doom
For another view of the same issue, this article from the Idaho Statesman demonstrates that though Mr. Hawley might ...
read more
Henry's Fork Basin Study
Henry's Fork Basin Study
The EIWRC is participating in this study designed to examine water storage opportunities in the Henry’s Fork Basin. If the study is fruitful, it will identify sites for additional water storage that could alleviate pressure on the entire Snake River storage system. It is truly long-term thinking on our part; there is no immediate benefit to be achieved water-wise. But the EIWRC Membership agreed at the annual meeting last month that our participation will help to ensure a broader approach to the study.
For information on the meeting and its agenda click here.
The meetings are open to all and run on a consensus-basis. Please note that the Henry’s Fork Watershed Council meetings are merely serving as the vehicle for the study. The study itself is jointly funded by The Bureau of Reclamation and the State of Idaho. Everyone should feel welcome to attend—we all pay taxes to support these entities!
Comments
-
Dear Seriously: Your questions are pointed ones so I wish to respond. But it would be nice to know who you are since pseudonyms have a way of facilitating uncivil commentary. Please feel free to identify yourself by name or by the interest group you associate with. Because I am not authorized to speak for the coalition on any given issue, what you are getting are my personal views. I can say that the members of the coalition agree that educating water users is a key to the success of any endeavor. But while it is important, it is not a solution by itself. Urban use accounts for less than 10% of the total water used in the ESPA. So even huge savings there won't really obtain savings on a large enough scale to avoid our having to solve Eastern Idaho’s water supply problems in other ways. Even so, cities have taken steps to teach conservation. Many cities have moved to metered water which promotes conservation. Handouts are inserted in utility mailings. Financial incentives are offered for the use and purchase of energy-saving appliances, etc. Local landscapers offer xeriscaping and drought-resistant plants and seminars. But I agree that more could be done. I personally believe that those who live in deserts should not expect acres of lush green lawn. But to force people to change gets into the gray area of tinkering with rights and freedoms. Idahoans do not respond well when their government tells them what to do. Consequently, it is usually better to allow the market to help "shape" their choices. Maybe you could come up with a plan to make xeriscaping more desirable to consumers, or make people want to limit their use of water in other ways. Flood irrigation is another matter entirely. There is a large school of scientific thought which says that evapo-transpiration (which includes both the water lost to evaporation as well as loss due to the moisture plants/crops give off as they grow) is not lost to the overall water cycle in the Snake River basin. In fact, it is often accounted for in scientific modeling. And to participate in this conversation seriously, one must become more educated about flood irrigation. It can be extremely desirable because it sinks water into the earth that becomes valuable groundwater. This "recharge" of the groundwater table is vital to the health of the aquifer (and the overall system). Flood irrigation is often encouraged. Many do believe that we should better control where and when this vital recharge happens, and this is one of the key things the EIWRC has been working toward. The phrase is managed Re-charge. Yet we are faced with scientific hurdles and the changing of a century or more of water use practices. People have their livelihoods at stake and proposed changes must be financially equitable, scientifically sound, and politically feasible for people to feel good about them. Considering the costs of water storage (long or short term) never makes for comfortable conversation. In general, most agree that those who benefit should pay. However, this often leads to smaller, less-comprehensive, and sometimes unwise solutions. There may be times when a government can step in and help a good project become established--perhaps allowing users to pay it off over time. My own opinion is that everyone who uses water in Idaho probably needs to step up and begin to "pay" more in terms of awareness, conservation, and even increased fees to cover the fair costs of delivering water. When was the last time taxpayers volunteered to pay more in a recession? But because growth is inevitable, we still must plan and adjust. Seeking additional storage is not only useful; it is a responsible approach to managing growth.by Rebecca Casper on 18 November 2010 at 11:26 a.m.
-
What are you doing to educate the public about water use? It seems as though educating city users as well as agricultural users would go a long way towards sustainability and would be a lot cheaper than figuring out a short term storage plan. Why not discourage people from having acres upon acres of water-sucking grass lawns? Along with that, why not teach those that flood irrigate about the insane amount of water that is lost through evaporation? Who would front the costs for any water storage project? The federal government? The Idaho tax payers? City dwellers?by Seriously? on 18 November 2010 at 7:52 a.m.
-
No fears. No one has determined that a dam proposal will be the outcome of the study. (In fact, the geological facts probably foreclose that option in the vicinity of the previuous-failed Teton Dam.) But state and federal decision-makers see benefit in looking to see what kinds of additional storage could be available--dams perhaps--but also including off-river storage and underground (aquifer) storage. This study is simply looking for options. It is important not to put our heads in the sand but rather be prepared to meet future water needs one way or another. As it is now, we have problems managing water so that all users have enough on a regular and reliable basis. (The kicker is that the water is really there--it just may not always be managaed optimally. Just my view.)by Rebecca Casper on 17 November 2010 at 4:56 p.m.
-
A Henry's Fork Basin Study? Can we not just enjoy the land the way it is? The dam building era is over. Any attempts to build any of these will be shut down just as fast you try and get them going. Waste of money to Eastern Idaho and just another sign of the lack of agency mission of the BoR.by Seriously? on 17 November 2010 at 3:53 p.m.