Here’s something a little different:
Eastern Idaho farmers on July 30 were rolling their tractors down the streets of Idaho Falls to protest … Republican Governor Brad Little.
On they rolled down Lindsay Avenue, toward the middle of town, an expression of dissatisfaction with what the governor and his administration has done about the toughest local issue in eastern Idaho this year: The water supply.
The depth of the seriousness may be indicated by the fact that 2024 isn’t even shaping up as an especially bad water year; it could have been much worse. It has been rough and difficult enough, though, for people who have junior - that is, low-priority - rights to use water. Loosely, that means users of groundwater. For the most part, surface water users have older rights and top priority. So when the supply of water, which is limited, falls short of the demand, as has happened this year, farmers reliant on groundwater have a big problem with few options to help them avoid disaster.
At one point this year a massive curtailment - shutting off water use - was ordered by the state Department of Water Resources across hundreds of thousands of acres. That led to loud protests from groundwater pumpers who said they might be ruined as a result (and for many that might have been no exaggeration).
The state tried to work out something mutually agreeable, with the aim of still avoiding too large a water draw from the Snake River Plain Aquifer while giving the various irrigators what they need. A deal announced some weeks ago and codified in a governor’s executive order returned allowable water use to groundwater pumpers, to a point - and it conditioned the ongoing use on the two sides reaching an agreement (to be overseen by the state) by October.
Little and Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke, who was key in the negotiations, praised the deal and seemed to breathe a big sigh of relief. The more the groundwater users seemed to think about it, though, the less agreeable it seemed.
Frank Vander Sloot, probably the Idaho Falls area’s top businessman, offered this succinct take to the East Idaho News: “The truth is, one side has a gun to the head, and the other the side holding the gun. … The same groups are back to the table, and I think they needed some help from the Legislature and the Governor, and it doesn’t feel like they’re going to get it.”
He’s not wrong. The surface water holders hold the high cards.
But considering Idaho’s prior appropriations principle of water use - “first in time, first in right” - and its limited water supply (most of southern Idaho really is desert, remember), the alternatives may be limited. What exactly are the groundwater users suggesting that would make them whole, would also satisfy the water uses of the surface water users (ground and surface water is connected), and also avoid disastrous aquifer drawdowns?
Maybe someone has a better answer (and that might be good if they do), but from here, it seems that some key element of the existing water regime in Idaho would have to be thrown overboard to achieve satisfaction for the groundwater farmers.
Most simply, that would seem to mean revising the prior appropriation doctrine, changing the way water users stand in line to get their previous liquid.
That of course sounds simpler than it would be in practice. Since there’s no way to simply manufacture more water, someone would be getting less water. The question is, who?
Little remarked in Idaho Falls, “My executive order earlier this summer created a framework for farmers and water users to get their work done as productively and expeditiously as possible. I can tell you that waiting until the last minute is unacceptable to me. We must give certainty to all water users in future years.”
A good aspiration. How to make it happen in practice is another matter. Do it wrong, and in years to come more than a few dozen tractors may be rolling down Idaho city streets in protest.
(image)